Oral
Answers to
Questions

Work and Pensions

The Secretary of State was asked—

Household Support Fund

Greg Smith: What steps she is taking to ensure that the household support fund helps the most vulnerable during winter 2021-22.

Therese Coffey: We have made £500 million available across the UK to support vulnerable households this winter. It really is for local authorities, which are closer to their communities, to use the funding to support those with needs for food, utilities and wider essentials. They are best placed to design schemes that support those most in need locally.

Greg Smith: The £500 million household support fund is extremely welcome and my local council is busy ensuring that support reaches those who need it through their excellent Helping Hand scheme. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Buckinghamshire Council on ensuring that a comprehensive package is available for those who are sadly unable to put food on the table or heat their homes, and will she set out what more can be done to ensure that those in such distressing circumstances know that local authorities have the resources and should be the first port of call?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right to praise Buckinghamshire Council, which was allocated £2.4 million from the fund. It is fair to say that local authorities delivering the household support fund have access to elements relating to health visitors, social workers and housing departments, and access to the benefits system through the Searchlight portal, to identify people who may need help at this time and are most in need. Of course, people should turn to their councils for that support, and they should be warmly welcomed.

Karen Buck: According to the Resolution Foundation, the combined effect of the removal of the £20 universal credit uplift and the Budget measures means that 3.6 million households on universal credit—three quarters of the total—will still be worse off this winter. These measures take £3 billion out of support for the poorest, so how far does the Secretary of State estimate that the £500 million household support fund, which is equivalent to just one sixth of the amount that has been removed, will reduce the level of hardship for people this winter?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Lady will recognise that some of the announcements made in the Budget recently will, I expect, provide some direct support for people working or, indeed, encourage people into work. However, the £500 million, being a targeted fund, will be a great support, with people identified by local councils that know who to target in this regard. It is also fair to say, as has been said many times, that the uplift was temporary, recognising the situation that we are in, and candidly, it was far more generous than ever happened—or rather, never happened—when we had the 2009-10 financial crisis.

Steven Baker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), I pay tribute to Buckinghamshire Council for all that it has done with the Helping Hand scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that in a place such as High Wycombe, where riches and poverty are often found so close together, it is imperative that we equip councils to provide local people with the local help that they need?

Therese Coffey: I strongly agree. That is why we are working through local authorities, which understand their communities well, without there being blanket schemes. It is important that that is reflected around the country, including in places such as High Wycombe.

State Pension: Payment Delays

Alison Thewliss: What steps her Department is taking to tackle delays in payment of the state pension.

Guy Opperman: I am advised that all delayed claims have been processed, except for those that require further customer information. Some 70% to 80% of claims are now made digitally by Get your State Pension, with over 50% being cleared the same day. We are, however, introducing a new tele-claims service that will supplement the paper applications, which we accept have been lengthy and have incurred delays.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the Minister for that answer. Two of my constituents should have started receiving their state pensions at the start of August and were on the verge of destitution when I was contacted in October by the welfare rights officer at Glasgow West housing association. Following the intervention from my office, both have now received what they were due from the Department for Work and Pensions, but they are by no means the only people to be hit by this latest DWP shambles. I am really concerned for people who do not have anybody like a housing association or an MP to advocate for them, so will the Minister tell me how many people he estimates have been affected by this altogether? What more can he do to put it right and make sure that those who do not have somebody advocating for them do not get left behind?

Guy Opperman: We accept that there have been delays, and we have taken significant action in the form of the redeployment of 700 staff to address those. I am pleased that the cases of the two constituents that the hon. Member outlined have now been addressed. The particular problem has been in respect of the receipt of further information from particular applicants, and those matters are being addressed on an ongoing basis.

Matt Rodda: People work hard all their lives and pay in to save for their retirement; they deserve to be paid their state pension on time. Colleagues across the House, as we have heard, are reporting more and more cases of delays in payment, some of which are as long as three months. This is a basic service provided by the Government, which we all rely on. How on earth did these delays come about? When will the Government take this seriously, and when will pensions finally be paid on time?

Guy Opperman: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my earlier answer. This matter was addressed by the end of October. The reality of the situation is that the pandemic has caused delays to state pensions, with issues relating to illness, self-isolation, caring, training, location, staffing, equipment, recruiting. I could go on, but these matters are being addressed.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

David Linden: There are not just delays to the state pension, but underpayments. The British Government are also set to hammer pensioners’ incomes, with a cut of £2,600 on average over the next five years as a result of their plan to break the pensions triple lock, which the House of Lords rejected last week with a majority of 102—led, indeed, by a Conservative. Will the Minister do the right thing and U-turn on his plans to scrap the triple lock on pensions? If not, is it not the case that the British Government just cannot be trusted with pensions, and that the only way to ensure dignity and fairness in retirement for Scots is with independence?

Guy Opperman: I have heard it all. How on earth the Scottish Government, were they in any event to get independence, would be able to pay ongoing state pensions is a mystery that no Scottish politician has ever been able to answer. The factual reality is that the state pension, by reason of the triple lock, is up £2,000 per person, something that would never happen under an independent Scotland—that is for sure.

Universal Credit Standard Allowance: End of Uplift

Sarah Olney: What steps she is taking to support families affected by the end of the uplift to the standard allowance of universal credit.

David Rutley: The Government have always been clear that the £20 uplift was a temporary measure. Universal credit recipients in work will soon benefit from the reduction in the taper rate from 63% to 55%, with work allowances increasing by £500 a year, meaning that nearly 2 million working households will keep about an extra £1,000 a year on average.

Sarah Olney: My constituent Simon Holroyd lost his mother to covid and is a single father to 10-year-old twins. He worked in the hospitality industry all his life to a senior level, but since the pandemic he has struggled to find work and is reliant on universal credit. His life before the uplift was removed was, in his words,
“a revolving mess of balancing debts”.
Now his situation is desperate. The Minister and the Secretary of State have both referred to the uplift as temporary, but for claimants such as my constituent who were not claiming universal credit before the uplift, the removal of the £20 is experienced only as a loss. Will the Minister commit to reintroducing the uplift?

David Rutley: With 1 million vacancies and above in the UK and with a comprehensive plan for jobs, our focus absolutely has to be on helping people into work,  particularly in the hospitality sector, where there are vacancies. I hope that there might be a vacancy for the hon. Member’s constituent.

Stephen Crabb: May I thank the Minister and especially the Secretary of State for really pushing for the cut to the universal credit taper rate that we saw in the Budget? It will make a real difference to families on low incomes. There are more than 1 million job vacancies right now, plus the Budget measures to strengthen work incentives—cutting the withdrawal rate, boosting the work allowance and increasing the national minimum wage. Does that not all add up to the best opportunity in more than a generation to bear down on long-term unemployment in this country?

David Rutley: Absolutely. I credit my right hon. Friend: I know that he has been a champion of improving the taper rate over many years, and it was a pleasure to work with him as a Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Now is the time for us to take forward opportunities for people, given the Budget measures that have been put in place, and help long-term unemployed people into work through the sector-based work academy programme and the restart programme, which the employment Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—is taking forward with her characteristic verve and enthusiasm.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.

Stephen Timms: Unemployment support is now at the lowest level in real terms for more than 30 years, even though the economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms over that period. As a proportion of average earnings, it is the lowest ever—lower than when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit 110 years ago. Why has unemployment support been set at this historically extremely low level?

David Rutley: It is always important to have a safety net, but it is also very important to make sure that we get people into the world of work, and that is what our focus is, as I have said repeatedly in my answers today. With 1.1 million vacancies and with a plan for jobs, that has to be our focus.

Ben Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at both money in and money out, and that the cost of living is causing pressures for worse-off families? Will he update the House on the work that the Department is doing in looking at the cost of living, particularly childcare and housing costs?

David Rutley: We have already provided a range of measures. Eighty-five per cent. of childcare costs are covered by universal credit, and extra support has been provided through the increase in the local housing allowance. So steps are being taken, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point about childcare. Clearly, we need to focus on it further, and we will.

Universal Credit Claimants: Support

Margaret Ferrier: What support her Department is providing to universal credit claimants who are unable to secure employment.

Mims Davies: Our plan for jobs provides tailored support for people of all ages, helping them to prepare for, get into and progress in work. The additional 13,500 work coaches whom we have recruited are ensuring that people receive the personalised advice that they need, and have access to the employment programmes or training that are right for them.

Margaret Ferrier: Research conducted by the End Child Poverty coalition shows that, in my constituency, 25% of children were living in poverty in 2019-20: that is 4,815 children. Since 2015, poverty has increased by 2.2%: that is 482 more children. I want to see the numbers going down, not up. Does the Minister agree that the best way to make that happen would be to reinstate the £20-a-week uplift in universal credit?

Mims Davies: I think we have heard across the Chamber that the way out of poverty and the way to make progress is through a pay packet, which gives people so much more than just pay: it gives them the confidence that enables them to make progress and move forward. The hon. Lady will be interested in the report from the in-work commission, to which we will respond shortly. In Scotland, our new programme, job entry: targeted support—JETS—has moved more than 1,500 people into employment since January this year. I think that she has visited her jobcentre, so she should feel confident that there is help out there to ensure that no one is left behind.

Robert Goodwill: I recently received a letter from a local bakery which is desperate for 30 people to come and work there. In fact we have hundreds of jobs, in hospitality, agriculture, social care and food processing. While it is disappointing that the Scottish Administration are not creating jobs for people in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, does the Minister agree that those people should come to places in North Yorkshire, such as Scarborough, where they will receive not only a warm welcome, but a great job and a great future?

Mims Davies: Long-term unemployment is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government to attend to, but I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has raised this important matter. We at the DWP are organising Hospitality Rocks events to bring people into the industry. It is possible to earn significant sums in a couple of years with the necessary training and support, and people should definitely be taking those jobs in Scarborough and beyond.

Rupa Huq: The fact that universal credit is an in-work benefit is commonly overlooked. There will be a great many more claimants in west London, where Ocado Zoom is treating its workforce appallingly. It has not taken them in-house as it promised, and they now have much worse terms and conditions. I know that the Government are ruling  out fire and rehire legislation generally, but will the Minister—I know she is a reasonable person, and everyone loved her the other day when she met our all-party parliamentary group on single parent families—look into this case, which the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain has been actively pursuing? The chief executive of Ocado Zoom will not even talk to me.

Mims Davies: The hon. Lady should raise the issue with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, because employee rights are a matter for that Department. However, she has made an important point. We have an employees’ market, with more than 1 million job vacancies, many of them in London. I hope that her constituents will say to that employer, “We are off somewhere else”. Whether that is in hospitality or elsewhere, they will receive a warm welcome, and so they should. They should be well rewarded for the work that they do, which is why the increase in the national living wage is so important.

Universal Credit System Resilience: Covid-19

Claire Coutinho: What assessment she has made of the resilience of the universal credit system during the covid-19 outbreak.

Therese Coffey: The universal credit system stood up to the challenge of the pandemic, which meant that people received vital financial support at their time of need. On one day alone we received just over 100,000 new claims, 10 times the average. The old system would not have coped with the unprecedented pressure that we have seen over the past 18 months, and that is yet another reason why universal credit is working.

Claire Coutinho: During the pandemic, the universal credit system proved not only its resilience but its agility in providing people with the emergency support that they needed. Now that the Government are rightly focusing on getting people back into work, could my right hon. Friend set out the timetable for the very welcome changes that she has made to the universal credit taper rate and to work allowances?

Therese Coffey: I was not the only person to cheer loudly when the Chancellor announced to the House that we were increasing work allowances and reducing the taper rate to 55% no later than 1 December. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the latest information I have is that we intend to try to bring that in from 24 November, which means that an extra 500,000 claimants will benefit, even more than might have been predicted just a couple of weeks ago.

Toby Perkins: The Department for Work and Pensions makes substantial efforts to assure itself that people who are on universal credit and not in work are entitled to that payment, either because of the disabilities that they have or because they have made every possible effort to find work. On that basis, why would the Government reassure themselves that it is okay to plunge those people into poverty, when they have done everything that the Government have asked them to do in terms of trying to find work? Why not just reintroduce that £20 payment?

Therese Coffey: The £20 uplift was a temporary measure reflecting the nature of what happened in the pandemic, and the greatest financial impact was on those who had gone from having earnings to having no earnings at all. We have doubled the number of work coaches and we are striving to help people to get into work, because we know that that is the best way to get on in life. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the change that happened in the Budget, which shows, perhaps even quicker than initially predicted, that work genuinely pays.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend is aware that Harrogate has been the location for the pilot work on the managed migration from legacy benefits. Is she able to update the House on how that is going? Before the pandemic, it was going very well indeed. Is she now in a position to recommence the pilot, or to move on to the next stage of the migration?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we undertook some pilot work in Harrogate on the managed migration element of moving everybody to universal credit. I am pleased to say that there was a considerable amount of learnings from that time in Harrogate, and we have also learned a lot during the pandemic. As such, I am not envisaging a need for the pilot to be resumed in Harrogate, but it has informed our plan, which is still in preparation, on resuming the managed move to universal credit.

Disabled People: Support in Work

Deidre Brock: What steps her Department is taking to help ensure that disabled people are supported in work.

Chloe Smith: The Department delivers national programmes as well as initiatives in partnership with the health system to support disabled people to start, stay and succeed in employment. These include Access to Work and intensive personalised employment support, which continues to provide that support after work has begun.

Deidre Brock: It is essential to ensure, particularly as we approach the winter, that all workers have access to a liveable sick pay and do not put themselves and others at risk. However, the current earnings threshold disproportionately affects disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. What concrete actions will the UK Government take to finally fix the wholly inadequate sick pay system?

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points, and it is a pleasure to work with her once again; I have done on various topics. The Government previously consulted on reform to statutory sick pay, as she will know, but we did not think that the pandemic was the right time to introduce changes to it, as that would have placed an immediate and direct cost on employers at a very difficult time. Instead, we prioritised changes to the wider welfare system. However, I can assure her that our work on this is ongoing and I look forward to talking to her and others further about this.

Vicky Foxcroft: I would like to welcome the Minister to her new role. She will be aware that the disability pay and employment gap remains far too large. The figures might appear to show a narrowing in recent years, but academics believe that this has been offset by an increase in the number of people identifying as disabled. Today, on the 26th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it is clear that urgent action is required. The Government’s strategy for disabled people offers only a consultation on mandatory reporting. Will she be bolder than her predecessor and bring in mandatory reporting now?

Chloe Smith: I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on these vital issues. She is right that our national disability strategy demonstrates our intention to consult on workforce reporting. She asked an additional question about pay gap reporting, but those are two slightly different things. Pay gaps are, of course, caused by a range of factors, and to address them we must ensure that everybody has equal access to opportunities. That will be my passion in this role. I hope she welcomed the disability employment statistics out only last week; they show that some progress is being made, but there is a heck of a lot more to do, and I will be there doing it.

Vicky Foxcroft: I gave the Minister a straightforward policy ask with no additional financial commitment, so it is regrettable that she cannot do it straight away. However, clearly money is required to deliver a fully inclusive society. Can she confirm that the spending review contained no extra funding linked to the strategy, other than for education and employment? Does she have plans to speak to the Chancellor about further funding, and will she now push for a full debate to show disabled people that her Government are giving the strategy the attention it rightly deserves?

Chloe Smith: That strategy and its implementation will be one of my utmost priorities; I look forward to discussing it in a constructive manner with the hon. Lady and everybody else here today, but I think she may have misread the £1.1 billion in targeted support for those with disabilities that was in the Budget and the spending review last week, which covers access to work, more work coaches and the Work and Health programme.

Maria Miller: I have seen at first hand how assistive technology can change the lives of young people with disabilities at Treloar School and College in Alton in Hampshire. Can my hon. Friend update the House with any further details on the national centre for assistive and accessible technology, which could do so much to support adults with a learning disability and other disabilities to get into employment?

Chloe Smith: I am really pleased that my right hon. Friend has raised that point, and I agree on the centrality of assistive and accessible technology. That is why our national disability strategy contained a commitment to invest up to £1 million in 2021-22 to develop a new centre for assistive and accessible tech, reporting on progress by next year. I look forward to working with her to do that.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Minister will know that many disabled people work and receive their personal independence payments, but when someone is  given a telephone appointment, they are told that they can only arrange the appointment once. That is hardly fair; if it is scheduled when they are working and the assessments can take up to an hour, that is not possible. What are the Government doing to make it easier for people to be in work and have that access?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Lady raises a good point, which I will be happy to take away and look into. In general terms, I can say that we made commitments in our Green Paper published in July to improve the assessment process overall, across both the work capability assessment and the PIP assessment. She will also know that we have been using telephone methods through the pandemic and are looking to see what will continue to be the best methods. I look forward to discussing that further with her, and I will take away the point she raises and look into it further.

Justin Tomlinson: We can be rightly proud of delivering record disability employment, but to meet our commitment of 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027, we must expand opportunities through disability apprenticeships, a key commitment within the national disability strategy. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue to press our Department for Education colleagues to ensure we deliver that vital commitment?

Chloe Smith: I certainly will. It will be my passion to deliver all the commitments in the national disability strategy, to support more disabled people to be in work, stay in work and thrive in work. I also thank my hon. Friend for the foundational work he did on this, which I look forward to continuing.

Carol Monaghan: It is good to hear some of the commitments the Government are making, but unfortunately we have heard them before. Many disabled people, particularly those who are trying to get employment and support allowance or PIP, will struggle through their assessment because their disabilities are hidden. What work is the Minister doing on that, including with providers of those assessments, to ensure that those with hidden disabilities are given a fair chance?

Chloe Smith: Again, the hon. Lady raises a common-sense point, on something that I will want to make sure is working well in our system. As I said in response to a previous point, we have indicated that we are keen to look at how the assessments in general can be improved. We have that commitment to this House in our Green Paper, published in July, which I will be looking forward to developing further. I can let the House know that we have received more than 4,500 consultation responses to that Green Paper, which gives us a very sound basis for hearing the voices of disabled people and acting on what is needed.

Young Jobseekers

Giles Watling: What support her Department is providing to young jobseekers.

Tim Loughton: What support her Department is providing to young jobseekers.

Paul Holmes: What support her Department is providing to young jobseekers.

Mims Davies: A year since the first placements began, almost 100,000 young people have started a kickstart role. I am delighted that kickstart will now continue through to March next year, offering exciting opportunities and crucial experience to even more young people through this extension. We are also extending our enhanced Department for Work and Pensions youth offer, expanding eligibility to 16 and 17-year-olds, so that all under-25s claiming universal credit or searching for work can benefit from more targeted support, through our youth hubs, mentoring circles and tailored support from youth employability work coaches.

Giles Watling: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will know, however, that we have a persistent problem with youth unemployment in Clacton, because I have raised this issue frequently. As we level up and build back better, can she assure me that we will not overlook areas of deprivation in the coastal regions of the south, so that we level up not only up and down, but sideways?

Mims Davies: We are absolutely determined that no region is left behind, and we have invested in and strengthened our support offer, as I have outlined. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that on 18 November we are hosting a kickstart employer day at Clacton Jobcentre Plus, matching employers directly with those young people in need to find them suitable roles.

Tim Loughton: I thank my hon. Friend for coming along to the DWP centre in Worthing and meeting a kickstarter working for the youth hub there, and for joining me in doing a shift working tables at the Fat Greek Taverna afterwards, as a result of which we were both offered jobs—the way things are going, that might come in quite handy. What more can we do to have outreach services, to make sure that young people get into those youth hubs in the first place, where they are given all the support they need on interviews and writing CVs, and that they turn up at interviews when they are given a job prospect?

Mims Davies: I like to think it was tenacious Tim and me together working on the hospitality shift. I know my hon. Friend is passionate about youth employment, and we did enjoy that visit. He saw that youth hub just last week, which shows that vital new link in the community, bringing together local partners. That wraparound support is key for the under-25s, particularly those who are not engaged with the Government at any other level; that is where our youth employment coaches come into their own. We have to remove those barriers to work for all.

Paul Holmes: I am delighted to see a new DWP youth hub open in Eastleigh today. It will make a huge difference to my constituents. Will the Minister set out how youth hubs will help our young people boost their skills and find new opportunities as we recover from the pandemic?

Mims Davies: My hon. Friend is right on this. We have one youth hub opening today in Eastleigh and another in nearby Romsey; crucially, they are working in partnership  with councils. Along with training, skills and employment opportunities—the DWP train and progress scheme, the sector-based work academy programme and the kickstart scheme—this means that everyone in this Chamber should know that the answer and the way to progress is through work.

Anum Qaisar-Javed: What message does the Minister think the UK Government send to young people with wage rates that discriminate based on their age, with a £5,000 gap between the one for an 18-year-old and the one for a 25-year-old?

Mims Davies: My daughter started her first job today, on £9.50 an hour. She is delighted and she is doing that alongside her studies. I understand the challenge on different wage rates, but the national minimum wage rise really helps people, alongside the taper rate and the skills and opportunities provided through youth hubs and more widely. So I do not think that young people should feel anything other than that there are great opportunities out there, with more than 1 million vacancies and seasonal work, which can be the first step on to the employment ladder and the next stage in their career.

Steve McCabe: I recently visited Selly Oak jobcentre and have to say that I was quite impressed by what I saw and what I heard about the kickstart scheme, but one thing that surprised me was the number of students who are taking places on the scheme. Does the Minister share my concern that there might be a slight displacement effect, with the students understandably seeking work experience but thereby taking places on a programme that was conceived for young people with fewer qualifications and less access to the job market? If that is the case, what might she do about it?

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for visiting that fantastic jobcentre. We have jobcentres doing that work up and down the country, and it is crucial that 100,000 young people are getting that first step on the employment ladder. He is right to point out that there should be no cherry-picking of the easiest people to move into employment. Kickstart is about getting young people on to the first rung on the employment ladder, which is why we have kickstart quick start and direct meetings with employers, so that nobody is left behind. The flexible support fund will address any barriers and we will make sure that everybody is job ready and nobody is left behind.

Peter Grant: In May this year, the then Minister for Disabled People, Work and Health, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), told the Work and Pensions Committee that the Department did not routinely collect information on disabilities from young people who enter the kickstart scheme and that it had no immediate plans to do so. That means it is impossible to monitor how accessible or inaccessible the kickstart scheme is for young people who have disabilities. Will the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? If it is, when is she going to sort it?

Mims Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that will be picked up in the evaluation. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned the fact that we should not be cherry-picking;  the kickstart scheme is about people with the biggest barriers and the highest likelihood of long-term unemployment, and nearly 100,000 young people have got on to the employment ladder because of it. We will look at the issue the hon. Gentleman raised, but the reality is that with the Access to Work programme and all the other interventions that come alongside a kickstart role, if someone has disabilities, that should not prevent them from being on the programme.

End of Universal Credit Uplift: Household Budgets

Paul Blomfield: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of ending the universal credit uplift on household budgets.

David Rutley: The Government have always been clear that the £20 uplift was a temporary measure to support households affected by the economic shock of covid-19. Now that the economy has reopened, the Government are giving nearly 2 million working households an increase, on average, of £1,000 per year, thanks to the reduction in the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55% and a £500 increase in the work allowance.

Paul Blomfield: More than 9,000 Sheffield households, including 4,500 children, have together lost around £10 million as a result of the Government’s decision, and the taper adjustment compensates for just a third of that lost income. There are also deep problems caused by a backlog of work capability assessments. For some claimants, the new-style employment and support allowance is expiring as it has taken more than a year to secure an assessment. Others on universal credit face long delays in getting their correct entitlement. What is being done to clear the backlog and ensure that people with disabilities get the benefits they deserve?

David Rutley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working flat out to ensure that people get their entitlement as speedily as possible, which is certainly the case for the vast majority of people. We saw during the pandemic that universal credit was particularly agile in responding to a huge number of people—hundreds of thousands—who needed support.

Richard Holden: We have a record 1.1 million vacancies, and we are cutting the taper rate and raising the income threshold; how many families in North West Durham and throughout the country will benefit?

David Rutley: We are going to see many people—

Guy Opperman: Hundreds.

David Rutley: More than hundreds—millions of people are going to benefit, because not only will they see the financial benefit but, as they start to get involved with their work coaches and understand what is available to them through the plan for jobs and in-work progression, they will see massive improvements in their financial situation and gain confidence in the workplace.

End of Universal Credit Uplift: Risk of Poverty

Stephen Morgan: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of ending the universal credit uplift on the risk of poverty among benefit claimants.

David Rutley: The Government have always been clear that the £20 uplift was a temporary measure to support households affected by the economic shock of covid-19. We believe that work is the best route out of poverty, which is why our comprehensive plan for jobs is supporting people to prepare for, get into and progress in work.

Stephen Morgan: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that the Government’s universal credit cut will affect 21% of working-age families in my constituency and nearly half of those with children. To make matters worse, the Bank of England says that, after tax, which the Tories continue to raise, and inflation, salaries are now forecast to fall by 1.25% this year. What plans does the Minister have to support my constituents immediately, as they will be feeling that the pound in their pocket is worth less this winter?

David Rutley: The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have the opportunity to fill the vacancies that are no doubt in his patch as well as across the country. I can also assure him that we do understand that there will be vulnerable families who need extra support this winter, which is why £1.8 million has been allocated to families in Portsmouth through the local authorities there.

State Pension and Pension Credit: Kettering

Philip Hollobone: How many people (a) receive the state pension and (b) claim pension credit in Kettering constituency.

Guy Opperman: The most recent statistics show that 17,942 people receive the state pension and 1,888 receive pension credit in the Kettering constituency.

Philip Hollobone: Pension credit is a tax-free, means-tested benefit aimed at retired people on low incomes. It can be worth up to £3,000 a year and trigger extra help with heating bills, council tax, free dental care and free TV licences for the over-75s, yet, at a time when many pensioners are struggling with household bills, up to 1 million pensioners are not claiming £1.8 billion in pension credit. What can the Minister do to encourage take-up in Kettering and across the country?

Guy Opperman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. We continue to make the case with the BBC, which I have met on two occasions, with the pension credit taskforce, which we specifically set up to address this matter, and with the Local Government Association and energy companies. We have put great efforts into increasing the stats. The stats on valuation and take-up are going up, but clearly more needs to be done, and I welcome his efforts in Kettering and beyond.

Universal Credit: Predecessor Schemes

Edward Leigh: What assessment she has made of the (a) utility and (b) value of universal credit compared to predecessor schemes.

David Rutley: Universal credit is a modern, tailored, resilient benefit responding effectively to economic conditions. It replaces six outdated and complex benefits with one, helping to simplify the benefits system and providing a safety net in times of need and, of course, making work pay.

Edward Leigh: When the Centre for Social Justice originally designed the universal credit system, it was with a 55p taper, so this reform is long overdue and very welcome. The fact remains, though, that there are still record numbers of people on universal credit, 60% of whom are not working at all, yet we have record job vacancies and a labour shortage. Will the Minister tell me what more can we do? How can we get more people back into work?

David Rutley: The thing that has impressed me the most since taking on this ministerial responsibility is the sheer enthusiasm of our work coaches. I definitely recommend that my right hon. Friend’s constituents speak to the work coaches to find out what opportunities are available to them, particularly through skills and through restart, to get involved in new sectors through the sector-based work academy programme. Huge opportunities are available for people, and they need to be explored.

Pensioners: Poverty Levels

Patricia Gibson: What steps her Department is taking to tackle levels of poverty among pensioners.

Ian Byrne: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the state pension in tackling levels of poverty among pensioners; and if she will make a statement.

Guy Opperman: Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by more than £2,050. Latest figures show that 200,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty after housing costs compared with 2009-10.

Patricia Gibson: With women born in the 1950s having their pension age increased with little or no notice, with state pension payments delayed, causing real financial distress, with more than 2 million older people living in poverty, and with the triple lock abandoned with many pensioners set to be £520 worse off next year, to what extent is the Minister proud of this Government’s record of standing up for pensioners?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Lady will be aware that the triple lock has raised the state pension and that this year’s decision is a temporary one, for one year only. In respect of her campaign for 1950s-born women, that matter was decided in both the High Court and the  Court of Appeal. If Scotland wishes to take action on this, there are various sections of the Scotland 2016 that she could address herself to.

Ian Byrne: Figures show that one in five pensioners in the UK are living in poverty; 1.3 million retirees are under-nourished; and 25,000 die each year due to the cold weather. With bills rising and in the teeth of a pandemic, the Government want to break a manifesto promise and scrap the triple lock on what is already one of the least supportive state pensions by international comparison. What impact assessment has the Department for Work and Pensions made of scrapping the triple lock, and how many more pensioners in Liverpool, West Derby will be living in poverty and unable to afford food as a result?

Guy Opperman: As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the reality of the situation is that we have taken the state pension—which was languishing under the previous Labour Government and had not been increased in any real way whatever—and massively increased it to £105 billion, with £24 billion on top of that. It has never been higher—never, ever. There has been a £2,000 increase compared with 2010 thanks to the triple lock and the actions of this Conservative Government.

Benefit Claimants: Cost of Living Increases

Jeff Smith: What steps her Department is taking to help support benefit claimants with increased costs of living.

David Rutley: From next April, the national living wage will rise by 6.6% to £9.50 an hour. This real-terms pay increase will leave more money in the pockets of hard-working people. The Government are taking action to make work pay for low-income households on universal credit by reducing the universal credit taper rate and increasing the work allowance.

Jeff Smith: On Friday, I visited the Fallowfield and Withington food bank. It is as busy as ever and expecting a surge in demand as a result of the recent changes to benefits. If Government support for people on benefits is adequate, why does the Minister think that so many of my constituents are having to rely on food banks?

David Rutley: We recognise that there are people who will require support over the winter period, which is why we have introduced the £421 million household support fund in England. I am sure that the hon. Member will welcome the £6.4 million that has been allocated to Manchester.

Topical Questions

Deidre Brock: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Therese Coffey: Since the last Work and Pensions oral questions, I am pleased to welcome the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the Under-Secretary  of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) to join our ministerial team. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on moving to his new role, looking after childcare. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for the great work that he did during his time in the Department; he should be proud of his achievements, including the changes to accessibility of benefits for those with terminal illness, and the national disability strategy.
Last week I was in Glasgow for COP26. I know you were also there at the weekend, Mr Speaker, to have discussions at that important climate conference. I was meeting my international counterparts and leading industry figures to discuss how to unlock the global superpower of pension funds to help us to achieve net zero. The UK is already leading the way. We need to mobilise climate finance, but together—with the resolve and readiness of countries and companies to act—the commitment that we secured in Glasgow will deliver prosperity and protection for people and the planet.

Deidre Brock: My constituent contacted the Department for Work and Pensions several times after her universal credit stopped at the end of July because she had reached state pension age, but she received no response. Three months later, I wrote to the DWP on the matter and received a letter on the same day, admitting the error, immediately depositing the outstanding amount and beginning the pension payments that my constituent was due. I listened to the excuses of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), on this earlier, but I still cannot understand how it could have happened. Will the Secretary of State apologise to my constituent for the very great anxiety that she has suffered because of the DWP’s blunders?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Member just shows her effectiveness as a Member of Parliament in responding to her constituent and taking the issue up with us. If there are specific details that she would like to go into, I think the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), will be more than happy to respond. It is right to say that universal credit is not paid to people who are of pension age, but I flag to her some of the issues addressed by my hon. Friend earlier when considering the backlog in paying out pensions.

Jonathan Reynolds: May I add my welcome to the new Ministers on the Front Bench today?
In the year before the pandemic, 380,000 sanctions were handed out by the DWP to the British people. Of course, there must be rules in any system, but since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, there has been a heavy focus on punitive sanctions, often for minor infractions, yet when the Home Secretary breaks the ministerial code by bullying, she gets off scot-free; when the Electoral Commission tries to investigate the Prime Minister’s flat refurbishment, it gets its wings clipped; and last week, when Mr Owen Paterson broke the rules on paid advocacy, this Government tried to do away with the rules all together. These are not one-offs. This  is a pattern of behaviour. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that many people are comparing how the DWP operates with how the Conservative party behaves, and are asking, “Why is there one rule for the Government and another for everybody else?”?

Therese Coffey: Well, what can I say? The interests of the British public are best served when the Conservative party is in power and in government. We are seeing a rise in employment. We are seeing a universal credit benefit system that is more generous than the legacy system that was there. We are finally removing a lot of the thresholds that actually prevented people from working more than 16 hours per week. I am proud of not only our policies but our civil servants in delivering an excellent record in trying to make sure that money gets to the people who deserve it the most.

Jonathan Reynolds: People simply want to know that everyone in this country is playing by the same rules, and I think that is reasonable.
Let me turn to another crisis of the Government’s own making—the problems in the labour market we have seen over the past few months that left the pumps dry and the shelves sparse. As we left the single market it was obvious which sectors would be most disrupted: transport, logistics, and social care and the NHS. Regardless of how people voted, we have to make this work, which it clearly does not at the moment because of Government incompetence. This Government often claim they have a plan for jobs, but surely any credible plan would have tackled these shortages head on and got unemployed people the skills the economy needs to keep Britain moving. So, very simply, why was there no plan in place to prevent these problems?

Therese Coffey: Very evidently, the plan for jobs is working. We are seeing more people on the payrolls than was happening pre-pandemic. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about some of the skills that may be required. I am conscious that many people who campaigned vigorously to stay in the European Union are still trying to use the excuse of leaving the European Union for why certain sectors are still under-supplied. The reality is that nearly 6 million people registered for the EU settlement scheme and they have an entitlement to live in this country if they so wish. I think there are some aspects of covid that are perhaps hindering people in coming back into the UK who are considering a return to their native countries. Let me say very clearly that we are working on this right across Government. We have the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. We are encouraging people to consider swapping sectors, as is happening with aspects such as SWAPs—sector-based work academy programmes—for people who are unemployed. There are also the bootcamps for skills and the incentives to take on apprentices that have given been to employers right across the country. I can honestly assure the hon. Gentleman that the plan for jobs is certainly working.

Selaine Saxby: North Devon still sees twice the number of jobseekers as pre-pandemic, yet employers across my constituency are desperate for staff of all skill levels. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to match jobseekers with vacancies?

Mims Davies: Jobcentres work directly with local employers using programmes such as SWAPs to fill those vacancies and gaps. We are providing training and work experience, and a guaranteed interview. The Chancellor has announced £1.3 million investment in new technology to better match claimants and vacancies with a new job-matching tool. I can confirm that that is out to tender and we will update the House shortly.

Chris Stephens: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. DWP staff report that Serco telephony services are causing excessive call times because the private sector staff are poorly trained. How much is this outsourcing obsession costing the taxpayer, and is it fair on claimants who face hours hanging on the phone only to receive often questionable advice?

Guy Opperman: If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me I will try to get a more detailed answer, but the bottom line is this: he will be aware that there is a regular review of all contracts put out by the DWP, and in respect of Serco the latest data was published on 24 September 2021 and is available on the gov.uk website.

Paul Holmes: Will the Minister update me on the In-Work Progression Commission’s report and explain how this will help my constituents to earn more and progress in their careers?

Mims Davies: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the Government will publish the response to that report by the end of the year. It will help his constituents and all those facing barriers to progressing in work. Almost £100 million was announced by the Chancellor to support a new in-work progression programme.

David Linden: The British Government’s statutory minimum wage is not a real living wage; in fact, it is a sham. It does not meet the minimum income needed for an acceptable living standard, and the differing rates for young people, including in the Secretary of State’s constituency, are wholly unjust and discriminatory. What action will she take to ensure that all workers, regardless of age, get a real living wage, as set by the Living Wage Foundation in April, that actually reflects the rising cost of living, and not the sham supported by this British Government that Scotland did not vote for?

Therese Coffey: We have a separate body that already makes recommendations. It is called the Low Pay Commission, and the differential in wages is out there. The hon. Member can cite whatever campaigning body he likes; we have seen a huge increase in the national living wage, and that is to be welcomed right across the country as we head towards the national living wage being 66% of median earnings.

Rob Roberts: Almost exactly a year ago, I had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee for the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which was widely appreciated by the industry as being an outstanding piece of legislation. One of the best parts of that Bill was pensions dashboards, which enable people to better understand and impact on their  pension savings. Can my hon. Friend in a short time give an update on the implementation of pensions dashboards and undertake to write to members of the Committee with a more detailed response?

Guy Opperman: I can do that. It is a herculean IT project with 43,000 pension providers, 22 million private pensions and state pensions all coming to your mobile phone, your laptop or your device at home. It will be groundbreaking and will be ready in 2023.

Rachael Maskell: In breaking the pensioners’ promise by unlocking the triple lock, many pensioners in my constituency, where there is an extremely high cost of living, will struggle this winter with heating and food. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that they receive the money they rightly deserve and that he promised the electorate to get through this winter?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Member will be aware that the pension has gone up by more than £2,000 in cash terms since 2010. There will be a double lock this coming year, subject to the will of Parliament, and there is also the enhanced take-up of pension credit, which I urge her to ensure her constituents apply for.

Stephen Metcalfe: Many sectors, as we have heard, are struggling to get the staff they need, such as social care, hospitality, janitorial services, haulage and logistics. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what further steps she is taking to enable jobseekers to find jobs, and businesses to find the staff they depend on to remain prosperous in my constituency?

Mims Davies: The DWP helps fill vacancies directly with work coach support through our plan for jobs programmes, including via the sector-based work academy programmes, and kickstart. We have doubled the number of our work coaches, particularly to support sectors with shortages, and we have a virtual job help platform with job search advice, a showcase of sectors and signposts directly to those vacancies, including in HGVs and logistics.

Yvonne Fovargue: The new Help to Claim contract tender only specifies digital and telephone channels, yet a large number of claimants who need this service find those channels impossible to use and need face-to-face advice. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no removal of funds from face-to-face services and that potential claimants will still be able to access help via face-to-face advice?

David Rutley: We are committed to making sure that the best advice is available to people. We have clearly moved on from the depth of the pandemic, and we are looking at how best we respond. I will come back to the hon. Lady with more detail on how we propose to move things forward.

Christian Wakeford: Since leaving the EU, it is right that all those in the UK who are entitled to benefits receive them, so what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that our post-Brexit benefit rules are applied fairly and consistently for UK and EU citizens alike?

Therese Coffey: We have been working consistently to try to ensure that for people who receive benefits, for which immigration status is required, we exhaust all avenues to encourage them to apply to the EU settlement scheme to maintain that benefit entitlement. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of people have done so, and we will keep working to try to ensure that, whether people have received letters, UC journal messages, invitations to come to face-to-face appointments, or supportive officers have been sent round to help them with the process, we are taking every action possible to try to ensure they do so. I encourage hon. Members to ensure that people know they must apply for EUSS status so that they continue to be eligible for the benefits.

Kirsten Oswald: Like other Members, I welcome the modest reduction in the universal credit taper rate, but it does not come close to compensating for the effect of the £20 a week cut to universal credit, to say nothing of the national insurance hike, rising inflation and soaring energy prices. In a written answer to me in September, the Minister for welfare delivery, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) confirmed that prior to cutting universal credit, the Department had not assessed the effect of the cut or the increase in energy costs on child poverty. Will the Secretary of State act now to correct that omission and conduct and publish an up-to-date assessment of how the cut to universal credit and the rising cost of living will impact on child poverty?

Therese Coffey: Given that it was a temporary uplift, recognising the effect of aspects of the pandemic on people new to benefits, no impact assessment was undertaken. With the removal of the temporary uplift, therefore, no impact assessment has been undertaken either.

Bob Blackman: The cut to the taper rate from 63% to 55% was clearly a vital measure to support people on low incomes. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to lowering the taper rate further so that we can ensure that people who go to work continue to work and benefit as a result?

Therese Coffey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing the announcement of the reduction of the taper rate from 63% to 55%. He may be aware that that  was the original design of the universal credit system. The Chancellor agreed with me and the Prime Minister that, in trying to ensure that work pays, it was the right moment to do it. It recognises the labour market opportunities and makes sure that people are better off working. With my right hon. Friend the Chancellor having already provided for costs of about £2.5 billion annually, I am not convinced that we will seek to change the taper rate further; instead, we will be seeking to ensure that all the current job vacancies are taken up so that work really does pay.

Andrew Gwynne: In answering an earlier question about 1950s women, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), referred to the High Court but not the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report. Given that the report explicitly urged the Government not to drag their feet and to proactively co-operate with the next stages of the investigation, will he assure me that he will break the habit of a lifetime and do just that?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the PHSO was set up under a Labour Government. It has a three-stage process. We are observing the process that his Blair-Brown Government, which he obviously now disowns, set up and insisted that we take.

Peter Aldous: Motor neurone disease is a cruel and relentless condition. Too many people with MND and other terminal illnesses are struggling to access the benefits that they need. The Northern Ireland Executive have committed to introducing legislation this month to reform the unfair six-month rule. Will the Government follow their lead?

Chloe Smith: I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see those changes made as quickly as possible, which is why we are taking a two-stage approach. That will allow us to introduce changes to universal credit and employment and support allowance via secondary legislation in April. Parliament will need to pass primary legislation to amend the special rules in other benefits, which we will introduce as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

David Fuller Case

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the statement, I remind the House that as sentencing has not yet occurred, the case to which the statement relates remains sub judice under the terms of the House resolution. Brief reference to the fact that a guilty plea has been given may be made, but Members should not go into details of the case or speculate about sentencing options. I hope the statement will instead focus on the wider issues.

Sajid Javid: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller and the Government’s next steps. In recent days, the courts have heard about a series of David Fuller’s shocking and depraved offences. The legal process is ongoing, as you have just said, Mr Speaker. David Fuller is yet to be sentenced, so there are some things it would be inappropriate for me to talk about at this time. I am sure the House will understand why the majority of my statement will focus on the steps that we are taking in response to those crimes and not the crimes themselves.
Before I do, I will briefly update the House on this shocking case. In December, David Fuller was charged with the murder of two young women, Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce, in the Tunbridge Wells area of Kent in 1987. Last week, he pleaded guilty to their murders. My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with Wendy and Caroline’s family and friends.
As well as that, the Kent and Essex serious crime directorate has been carrying out an investigation into his offences in hospital settings between 2008 and 2020. As a result, Fuller was charged with a series of shocking offences involving sexual offences committed in a hospital mortuary. He has also pleaded guilty to these offences. As sentencing has yet to take place, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the case, but I will say that, in the light of what has happened, the Justice Secretary will be looking at whether the penalties that are currently available for such appalling sexual offences are appropriate.
It has taken months of painstaking work to uncover the extent of this man’s offending. The fact that these offences took place in a hospital—a place where all of us should feel safe and free from harm—makes this all the more harrowing. This has been an immensely distressing investigation, and I would like to thank the police for the diligent and sensitive way that they have approached it. They have shown the utmost professionalism in the most upsetting of circumstances, and I would like to thank them for their ongoing work. I would also like to thank the local NHS trust—Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust—for co-operating so closely with the police.
Officers have, tragically, found evidence of 100 victims. Of these victims, 81 have been formally identified, and specially trained family liaison officers have been supporting their families. Every family of a known victim has been contacted. We have been working closely with the police, the police and crime commissioner and the NHS trust to make sure that those families who have been directly  affected receive the 24/7 support that they need, including access to dedicated caseworkers, and mental health support and counselling.
If anyone else is concerned that they or their loved ones may be a victim, or if they have any further information, they should search online for the major incident police portal, and select “Kent Police” and “Operation Sandpiper”. I know how distressing the details of these offences will be for many people. The local NHS trust has put arrangements in place to support staff who have been affected, and regardless of whether or not someone has been directly impacted by these offences, they can access the resources that are available on the My Support Space website.
This is a profoundly upsetting case that has involved distressing offences within the health service. The victims are not just those family members and friends who have been abused in this most horrific of ways; they are also those who are left behind—people who have already experienced loss, and now experience unimaginable pain and anger. They are victims, too.
Even as we look into exactly what happened, I, as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, want to apologise to the friends and families of all the victims for the crimes that were perpetrated in the care of the NHS, and for the hurt and suffering they are feeling. I know that no apology can undo the pain and suffering caused by these offences, but with such serious issues of dignity and security, we have a duty to look at what happened in detail, and make sure it never happens again, so I would like to update the House on the steps we are taking.
First, NHS England has written to all NHS trusts asking for mortuary access and post-mortem activities to be reviewed against the current guidance from the Human Tissue Authority. Trusts have also been asked to review their ways of working and to take a number of extra steps, including making sure that they have effective CCTV coverage in place, that entry and access points are controlled with swipe access, and that appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service checks and risk assessments are being carried out. NHS England will report directly to me with assurances that these measures have been taken, so that we can be confident that the highest standards are being followed and that we are maintaining security and upholding the dignity of the deceased. Next, the local trust has been putting its own steps in place. It has already conducted a peer review of mortuary practice, and it initiated an independent investigation into those specific offences.
I thank the trust and its leadership for its quick initial work to set up that investigation, but given the scale and nature of these sexual offences, I believe we must go further. Today I can announce that I am replacing the trust investigation with an independent inquiry that will look into the circumstances surrounding the offences committed at the hospital, and their national implications. It will help us to understand how those offences took place without detection in the trust, identify any areas where early action by the trust was necessary, and consider wider national issues, including for the NHS. I have appointed Sir Jonathan Michael to chair this inquiry. Sir Jonathan is an experienced NHS chief executive, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and a former chief executive of three NHS hospital trusts. He had been leading the trust investigation, and will be able to  build on some of the work he has already done. The inquiry will be independent, and it will report to me as Secretary of State.
I have asked Sir Jonathan to split his inquiry into two parts: the first, an interim report, which I have asked for early in the new year; the second, a final report looking at the broader national picture and the wider lessons for the NHS and other settings. We will publish the terms of reference in due course, and I have also asked Sir Jonathan to discuss with families and others to input into this process. Sir Jonathan’s findings will be public and they will be published. We have a responsibility to everyone affected by these shocking crimes to do right by those we have lost, and by those still left behind in their shock and their grief. Nothing that we can say in this place will undo the damage that has been done, but we must act to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again. I commend this statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for its content, and I welcome what he has announced today.
This is an unspeakably vile and horrific crime, and across the House our thoughts and hearts go out to the families of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce, and to the families of those with deceased loved ones. Those 100 victims—we are talking about the corpses of 100 women —were, as has been reported in the press, violated in the most monstrous, vile and sickening way. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all the families impacted will have immediate access to the psychological counselling and support that they need? Will NHS staff at the hospital, many of whom will themselves be devastated, also have access to appropriate counselling and support?
I welcome the announcement of an inquiry, and I pay tribute to local Members of Parliament across Kent and Sussex who have spoken up on behalf of their communities in recent days. In particular, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said over the weekend that authorities and politicians must
“ask serious questions as to how this could have happened and…establish that it can never happen again.”
I agree, and that is why an inquiry is so important.
Will the Secretary of State offer some precision as to when the terms of reference will be published? Fuller was caught because of a murder investigation, which in itself prompts a number of questions about the regulation of mortuaries. The Human Tissue Authority, which regulates hospital mortuaries, reviewed one of the mortuaries in question as part of its regulatory procedures. It raised no security concerns, but found a lack of full audits, examples of lone working, and issues with CCTV coverage in another hospital in the trust. Will the inquiry consider—or perhaps this is the remit of the Secretary of State—the Human Tissue Authority’s standards, the way it reviews hospital mortuaries, and how those standards are enforced? Will the inquiry recommend new processes that the Secretary of State will put in place if it is found that a mortuary fails to meet the high standards for lone workers, for security and for care?
The NHS has asked trusts to review their procedures; I welcome that. Will the Secretary of State ensure that all mortuaries document and record the access of all staff entering a mortuary, and will he ensure that standards  for CCTV are enforced and that CCTV is in place comprehensively across all mortuaries? There are, of course, other premises where dead bodies are stored, such as funeral directors, that do not fall under the regulatory remit of the Human Tissue Authority, so will its remit be expanded, or will the inquiry look at regulation for other premises where bodies are stored?
When our loved ones are admitted into the hands of medical care, that is done on the basis of a bond of trust—that our loved ones will be cared for when sick and accorded dignity in death. That bond of trust was callously ripped apart here. I offer to work with the Secretary of State to ensure that something so sickening never happens again.

Sajid Javid: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s words and his offer to work together on this. I most certainly would like to take him up on that. I think the whole House would want to see us all working together on this.
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is comprehensive support rightly available to all families and friends that have been affected. As I said a moment ago, every family of the known victims has been contacted directly by family liaison officers. They are in touch, and that support will continue for as long as necessary, including dedicated caseworker support, a 24/7 telephone support line and whatever counselling and support of that nature is needed. That includes support for staff in the NHS and elsewhere, where staff will also be affected.
On the terms of reference, that is something that I and my Department will work on with Sir Jonathan. I have already started discussions with him on that, and I am sure that he will want to have discussions with others, including families, their representatives and the Members of Parliament who represent those families.
The work that Sir Jonathan will do will be broad in its nature. I think it has to be, because, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to, it has to go beyond just hospitals. There are a number of settings that rightly need to be looked at, including, for example, local authority mortuaries, private mortuaries and other settings, such as undertakers. I think the inquiry should be open to all of that, and I think we would want to see that reflected in the terms of reference.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to recommendations around access, documentation and CCTV. He is right to raise all those issues. I want to be careful not to pre-empt the final outcome of what is an independent inquiry, but I am sure all those issues will rightly be looked at.

Greg Clark: I join the Secretary of State in giving thanks to Kent Police for its sensitivity, but also its tenacity in bringing Fuller to justice after all these years. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to the inquiry that my colleagues in the area have called for.
It is important that the House understands the need for the inquiry. As well as brutally murdering two young women, Fuller raped the dead bodies of over 100 girls and women. Their identities are known, and that means that their families have been informed. The shock and desolation that those families are going through is beyond imagination. That is why the inquiry is so important—because this can never be allowed to happen again.  It does go beyond the local. In the last four years, there have been over 30 incidents of unauthorised people entering mortuaries in NHS hospitals. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will do three things? First, will it allow victims’ families to give evidence on the impact the crimes have had on them? Secondly, will he make public recommendations for the whole of the NHS, as well as the local NHS trust? Thirdly, will he publish the assessment of the risks for other sectors in which people have access to human dead bodies? We can never take away the horror and the grief that is being suffered by the families, but we can do one thing, which is to protect other families from having to go through this nightmare.

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with all the words of my right hon. Friend, especially when he talks about the shock, hurt and pain of all the families, many of them his constituents. He asks specific questions on three points: whether the victims will be allowed to give evidence to the inquiry; whether the recommendations will be for the whole of the NHS and be public; and whether the inquiry will publish its findings on other sectors beyond the NHS. Absolutely, the inquiry will do all three things. I can give him that assurance.

Karin Smyth: This is truly one of the most horrific things any of us will have heard of or encountered. Our thoughts are with the families and those conducting the investigations. Following on from the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) who highlighted that access has happened elsewhere in the country, the Secretary of State said in his statement that he has written to NHS England to ask all NHS trusts to report directly to him on what they find in terms of compliance. Will he outline how he will share the information from NHS England with local communities who are now very concerned about that and with us as their representatives?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I am very happy to expand on that. The NHS has, first, written directly to all trusts and asked them to look into the issues of mortuary access and other post-mortem activities, and to judge them against current guidance to ensure that it is all being applied. In the first instance, that information will go back to NHS England. It will then be shared with me and I will certainly want to find the best way of sharing it with both the House and everyone who is interested.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for the extremely sensitive tone with which he is approaching this incredibly difficult issue. He is absolutely right to put the concerns of families and staff first. He is also right to say that this issue will not be resolved by one evil man facing justice. The big question everyone is concerned about is this: could this happen elsewhere and why did this horrendous series of crimes happen over such a long period of time without being detected? I welcome the call for an independent inquiry and the Secretary of State’s decision to do that. May I ask him to praise the work of the vast majority of morticians throughout the country who do an incredibly difficult job extremely well? I met some of them after the Manchester Arena bombing and I know that he would not want this terrible, terrible series of acts to cast a cloud over their fantastic work.

Sajid Javid: I agree very much with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to raise those points. As he said, these appalling crimes have taken place over a number of years. I am certain that the independent inquiry will get to the bottom of that and that we can learn not just about mortuaries in hospital settings, but much more broadly. He is also right to draw attention to the vast majority of people who work in mortuaries, the morticians and those who support them, for the very difficult and important work they do.

Daisy Cooper: This is a truly harrowing case and I think many people will be shocked not just by the horrific nature of the crimes, but by the fact that many of the extra steps announced today were not already in place. Will the Secretary of State give an indication of how quickly he expects hospitals to adopt the extra steps of CCTV coverage, swipe access and DBS checks in every single hospital and mortuary?

Sajid Javid: I would expect that many of those steps may well be in place in many NHS trusts. The purpose of the NHS writing to all trusts is to ensure that the kinds of steps that I set out earlier, and others, are in place, so they are following the current rules and guidance that are set out by the Human Tissue Authority. What we also need to do is determine whether the current rules and guidance are right in the light of these appalling crimes and whether we need to go much further than that. That is also the purpose of having an independent inquiry.

Nusrat Ghani: Fuller’s vile and depraved acts are hard to comprehend, especially taking into account the number of victims and the fact that the crimes took place over such a long period of time. My thoughts are with the families of Fuller’s victims as they come to terms with the news that they have been told. I am grateful for the inquiry; we need to understand how access was made available to Mr Fuller. May I push the Secretary of State a bit further, especially on family liaison officers? Will he provide assurances that all the victims’ families have that access for as long as they need it and can access mental health services for as long as they need to? Will he provide some assurances that, as far as he is aware, all the families of the victims have been contacted to date? And perhaps he can offer some assistance to the staff of MPs who are dealing with constituents going through this, so that we can make sure that we are offering the most sensitive advice and support possible.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make those points, and I can give those assurances. The police have informed my Department that all the families of all the victims have been contacted. They all have family liaison officers. That support and other support, such as counselling and mental health support, if required, and the 24/7 telephone line that I referred to, will remain in place for as long as is necessary. Indeed, if she and other Members of Parliament who have constituents who are affected think that there are other ways to provide support, of course we would be willing to do that.

Huw Merriman: I thank the Secretary of State for his words and his action; it is much appreciated, as is the solidarity shown by the  shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for leading the local MPs on this difficult matter.
The nation has been absolutely appalled and horrified by the actions that we have heard about, and none more so than the people in Heathfield, where Mr Fuller was arrested at his family home. They are good people who have been shocked by what they have found out. My constituents use the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. It is an excellent hospital, run by some brilliant management and fantastic staff. Will the Secretary of State make sure that those staff and management have all the support that is needed to ensure that patients receive their ongoing care?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. His local hospital does some excellent work in supporting local people in all their health needs and has done so for a long time. I have no doubt that this news will be incredibly distressing to all the people who work in the hospital, and they will get the support that they need. The other support that is necessary for the hospital to continue with its good work and care will remain, and will remain very important.

Helen Grant: Nothing can undo the horror that the families of victims are going through, but I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Could he provide some further and better details on the timescale for the final report that will come out of the inquiry? He mentioned an interim report early next year, but what about the final report? When does he anticipate that the recommendations that might be made in that report will be implemented?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I am happy to provide more information on that issue. I have asked Sir Jonathan to provide the interim report from his inquiry early next year. As my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will understand, it will take some time to get the terms of reference in place and make sure that the review is done properly, but it is important to learn some early lessons, especially around the local hospital trust. I anticipate that the interim report might take about three months, but I will wait to see Sir Jonathan’s final analysis. I hope that the final report will come some time next year; I do not want to set a timetable now without knowing the full terms of reference.
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the work that I have asked for from the Human Tissue Authority as well as the independent inquiry. I have asked it to do an independent review of its own advice to me on the current regulations.

Thomas Tugendhat: This horrific crime has shocked many in Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling who use the hospital. I associate myself entirely with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark).
I thank the Secretary of State for announcing the inquiry that many of us have been seeking. May I ask him to provide some resources locally for the trust to reassure patients and staff of the actions that it is taking and make sure that they are communicated to all the towns and villages that rely on and place so much importance on the hospital? We need to ensure that trust is returned to the establishment if we are to have the care needed for all our communities.

Sajid Javid: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will, of course, be a very difficult and distressing time for the local trust. I have already discussed the matter with my colleagues in NHS England, and it will be provided with the resources that it needs.

Laura Trott: I thank the Secretary of State for agreeing to the inquiry. For my constituents who have been affected, nothing will ever take away the pain and the trauma, but I hope that it will at least provide them with some comfort and assurance that this will never happen again.
When David Fuller was first employed, DBS checks did not exist. Subsequent checks failed to pick up his previous convictions. Can the Secretary of State assure us that that issue will be looked at as part of the inquiry? Will he look at the wider NHS and ensure that people with convictions do not have access to sensitive areas of NHS trusts?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. As other colleagues have done, she raises a very important point: it is clear from this case that the issue of employment checks, especially DBS checks—not just in hospital settings, but in mortuary and undertaker settings—needs to be looked at afresh. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the independent inquiry, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the issue will absolutely be looked at.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: From time to time, we talk about the House being at its best. I regret to say that I do not think that the House has been at its best in the way in which it has handled standards issues over the past week. I would like to make a few points about where we are now and where we might get to if we can approach the issue in a genuinely constructive and non-partisan spirit.
In my role as Speaker, I am required to maintain strict impartiality. That includes, for example, responsibility for giving the House the opportunity to consider orderly amendments that attract considerable support, whatever my own view of them may be. But I also feel a weighty responsibility to ensure that the House deals with these issues effectively and fairly, and that its reputation reflects that.
One issue is clear. Owen Paterson has resigned as an MP, so it no longer falls to the House to decide whether he should be suspended, although I note that the House has not reached a decision on the report of the Select Committee on Standards. I understand that the Committee is nearing the end of its review of the code of conduct. After that report has been published, there may be some way of working with the Committee to build on its work.
On Thursday, the Leader of the House indicated that he believed that there was cross-party support for reform of the standards process, and particularly for looking at a mechanism for appeals. He also said that
“a Committee cannot work effectively without Opposition Members on it”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1056.]
I agree. If the House wishes to review the system, it must do so on a cross-party basis. Opposition parties have made it clear that they will not participate in the Committee established on Thursday. We therefore need to find a different way forward. I would also expect the Chair of the Committee on Standards to be invited to have a role in any process, given the extensive work that his Committee has already undertaken.
In finding that way forward, I want to remind the House of two things. First, I repeat what I have said before about the importance of not criticising officials in this House who are not able to respond. Of course it is possible to make proposals to improve processes and practices, but please do not criticise the Commissioner for Standards, who is doing a job that we have appointed her to do. Secondly, I know that there have been concerns about what recent events mean for the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. Let me be clear: the decision taken last Wednesday did not in any way affect the operation of the ICGS or that of the Independent Expert Panel. Let me say to those people who feel that they are not going to come forward because the ICGS will not be there that it is there: do not think that there is a barrier to people coming forward.
Finally, and again in a spirit of finding the best way forward, I say to the House that I will do everything I can to help to ensure that all Members feel confident that we have an effective and fair system, and that those who follow our proceedings feel the same.
I granted the debate today because I thought it was essential to sort out the mess that we are in. We can start to do that today, but it requires two things: for us all to tone down the party political sniping and focus calmly on making sure the system is as effective as it can be, and for everyone to recognise that, if we are going to achieve progress, we will only do so on a cross-party basis. I also want to remind the House that it is not in order to make allegations of impropriety against other named Members, unless the House is considering a substantive motion dealing with the issue directly. There are other routes for raising such claims. So please, use the routes that are available.
I sincerely hope that all Members will take the approach I have recommended, and that by the end of this debate we will have a clearer sense of how we can move forward together on this important subject. Please, let us see the House at its best, as we have certainly seen it at its worst.

Committee on Standards:  Decision of the House

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Wendy Chamberlain: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the consequences of the decision of the House on 3 November relating to Standards.
First, I want to place on the record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this debate. I also want to record my thanks for the work done by all members of staff in this place.
I must agree with you, Mr Speaker: I was horrified to learn that the Commissioner for Standards had received death threats. That is appalling. No one should receive death threats for doing their job.
The role of Commissioner for Standards provided one of the key ways in which we moved beyond previous scandals which had rocked the House. The role is not political The Commissioner was appointed by the House to do a job, and that is what she has done and continues to do.
The actions of the Government last week have tarnished this House’s reputation. Last week was UK Parliament Week, a time focused on engaging citizens in the work that we do here. Well, Mr Speaker, if I had been tuning into Parliament last week for the first time, I would probably have turned the television right off again.
I have been a Member of this place for less than two years, and most of the time I am proud to have been chosen to represent North East Fife to be able to act for my constituents and to fight their corner. I was proud to do the right thing last week by opposing the Government and voting to uphold the standards procedure. It is hard to be proud to be a Member of Parliament when, as a body, we are all tarnished with the Government’s brush and when in the eyes of the public we are tainted by allegations of sleaze.
The Government’s actions last Wednesday have rightly been condemned across the board. Sir John Major said that
“the way the government handled that was shameful, wrong and unworthy of this or indeed any government.”
Lord Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that the proposed reforms to the Standards Committee were
“deeply at odds with the best traditions of British democracy.”
My inbox and, I am sure, those of others are full. One example of the many questions I have been asked is:
“What gives the Government the right to have a vote to change the process just because it has adversely affected one of their own? This is an appalling message to the wider public.”
My constituent was right: what gives this Government the right to think that they can change the rules when a decision does not suit them, that they can ignore judgments that are not in their favour and that they can whip their own MPs to achieve the outcome they wanted, in violation of the conventions of this House?

Layla Moran: Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been a distraction from one of the most important sets of debates going  on at the moment, at COP26? When our constituents were tuning in to this place, that is where the focus of Parliament should have been. Instead, the focus was on the shenanigans of this Government, and that is the real tragedy here.

Wendy Chamberlain: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. COP is the last-chance saloon for this country and for the planet, and to have such distractions in this place is reprehensible.

Tan Dhesi: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for securing today’s debate on standards. When I was first elected to this House, the mother of all Parliaments, I was incredibly proud because I thought that Members conducted themselves with honour and integrity, and that we were not ruled by a Prime Minister who was a tinpot dictator and who is himself now mired in sleaze—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have just said that we want to show the House at its best. I do not think that the term “tinpot dictator” aimed at an individual is going to bring unity. I want to see us at our best, to show that we take this seriously. We want to show the House in the best way possible, so please, let us moderate our language and moderate our thoughts. Let us do this right.

Wendy Chamberlain: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I think there is a point here: this is the kind of behaviour we would expect to see in the Duma in Moscow or the National People’s Congress in Beijing, not in the House of Commons. Previous Prime Ministers and previous Governments have all had their failings, but it is a long time since we have seen issues such as these and an absolute lack of resolve to do anything about them. They say that a fish rots from the head down, and I am disappointed to see that the Prime Minister has chosen not to turn up today to answer our questions, given that the Leader of the Opposition is in his place. I cannot help but feel that he thinks the rules do not apply to him.
The Government have recently failed to properly investigate allegations, failed to declare relevant meetings and, arguably, attempted to rig the system to cover their own back. This is the Prime Minister who flew to Afghanistan to escape a vote on Heathrow when he was Foreign Secretary, and he has driven to the north-east to escape questions today.

John Baron: I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. As one of those who defied the three-line Whip of their Government last week on this issue, I think she will agree that it was patently wrong to try to reform the system at this point. We have had years to reform it, but does she agree that we need cross-party support for this, and that, given that the Committee on Standards is already looking at the issue, we should wait for its findings before making any further decisions?

Wendy Chamberlain: I am sure that the hon. Member was present at the debate last week, and he will know that that is exactly what those of us on this side of the House were calling for. We were calling for consensus and for the goalposts not to be moved. We were also  proposing that we look at our processes and procedures on an ongoing basis, as we should be doing, and hold ourselves to account as our voters would expect us to do. I have had correspondence from lifelong Conservative voters who have been appalled, not just by last week’s actions but, sadly, by this Government’s actions over the past two years and the alarming frequency with which scandals befall them.

Janet Daby: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have been playing a ridiculous game with the public’s trust, not only through the foul play in last week’s vote, but through a string of corrupt dealings over the past two years?

Wendy Chamberlain: I will go on to detail some of the things the hon. Lady is referring to. Back in May 2020, it was Dominic Cummings’s trip to Barnard Castle, in flagrant breach of covid regulations; then it was the Home Secretary, found to have breached the ministerial code, but let off; and then it was the then Health Secretary breaching covid guidance he had been instructing others to follow. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wera Hobhouse: It has been said in the media that some MPs are now walking through the corridors of Westminster feeling invincible. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are accountable to our constituents and that they are our boss?

Wendy Chamberlain: I agree, and that is one of the challenges. This is not an ordinary job. We are not in a line management structure; we are accountable only to our constituents.

Barry Sheerman: As the longest-serving Member on the Opposition Benches, may I say to the House that I was appalled at what happened last week? However, as a long-serving Member, I must also say that that behaviour is not typical. I have worked with people in this House of all parties for a very long time, and most of their behaviour is good. It is excellent—it is cross-party. This case has done something to damage our reputation, but please let none of us undermine the fact that normally, most hon. Members on all sides act honourably and work together, and I am proud to be a Member working with them.

Wendy Chamberlain: As an MP elected in 2019, one of the great losses as a result of covid has been the lack of opportunity to meet people in real life and engage across the House and across parties. As we move through covid, I hope there will be more opportunity to do that, so that we can see the good behaviour on all sides.

Tim Farron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She is absolutely right. In recent weeks, we have mourned the loss of two great men, who served their communities well in this House and were decent people. We have talked about how important it is that we conduct ourselves with grace and forgiveness on all sides and that our tone is different from that which the public expect. Does she agree, though, that being gracious does not mean ignoring the reality when one side behaves especially badly?  We do not need to be soppily neutral. The reality is that the Government made a decision last week to do something that undermined trust in democracy at every level, locally and here in Westminster. That is why her debate is so important.

Wendy Chamberlain: We on these Benches are the Opposition. It is our job to oppose the Government unless they can behave otherwise. I will try to make some progress.
Over the past 20 months, my constituents have had to follow more rules than they have ever had to deal with before, while sadly we are governed by Ministers who seem to care far less about the rules than any predecessors in living memory. That is why we are here today. It has been reported over the weekend that Ministers are focused on pleasing their boss, not on doing what is right for this country. We have seen story after story break, including cash for honours and undeclared interests.

Daisy Cooper: On that point about cash for honours, does my hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory footing, to ensure that any recommendations made to the Prime Minister cannot be ignored in the same way that the Prime Minister ignored advice given to him by the previous independent adviser on ministerial interests, recommending that the Home Secretary be sacked for bullying?

Wendy Chamberlain: These are all things that need to be looked at on an ongoing basis, and there are potentially areas where the different processes are in conflict. However, I will now make some progress.
Who is influencing our politics? How is taxpayers’ money being spent, and what is being done to hold those in power to account? Those questions are why we argue that we need a public inquiry, with the powers and resources to get to the depths of the situation we are in. People around the country who play by the rules deserve answers, but instead they are being let down by this Government and by a Prime Minister who will not take even the most basic of steps to turn up to this debate.
It is a great shame that the Prime Minister has not graced us with his presence this afternoon, because there is still a huge amount that we do not know about the events of last week. There are many questions that demand answers, many of them involving the Prime Minister’s personal role in this affair. This is a Prime Minister, after all, who has been under investigation more times than any other Member in recent years. The question is: who stands to benefit from getting the current standards processes out of the way? Members of the public will have to draw their own conclusions on that, with the Prime Minister not being here today.
However, the questions do not stop at the Prime Minister; they extend to all those involved in the whipping operation last week. First, why was there a whipping operation in the first place? This was House business and it should not have been whipped. The Government tried to change our procedures without our consent; and then they U-turned and tried to walk it back. But they cannot walk back the events of last week—that is why we are here, looking forward.
We have heard serious, concerning allegations today that Members breaking the whip were threatened with a removal of funding for projects in their constituencies. I ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to address that point and whether it is this true, as the matter deserves further investigation. The idea that communities should suffer because their representative did the right thing is, frankly, abhorrent. Despite all those alleged threats, the whipping operation was only a partial success. I thank those Members on the Conservative Benches who stood up for what was right and those Members, including the Father of the House, who last week supported my application for this debate.

Aaron Bell: I just wish to make it clear that at no stage were any threats of that nature made to me when I broke the whip last week.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for providing us with that clarity—it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister is not here to do that.
The final set of questions is for us, in this place, to answer; they are not for Ministers and the Government, but for Members of this House. How do we go about rebuilding trust and confidence in what we do here?

Neale Hanvey: On that point—

Wendy Chamberlain: I will not give way, as I am going to make progress. I hope that we will be able to discuss that issue further today.
No system is perfect. There is always room for improvement. Whatever I previously thought of our process for investigating complaints against Members, what I saw last week made it abundantly clear that changes need to be made. I find it hard to believe that Owen Paterson was able to vote on his own suspension last week, while the votes of Members currently under investigation were critical in the passage of the amendment that saved him. That looks like the equivalent of the defendants in a court case also taking part in the jury. It is wrong, and if we are to make changes, that must be top of the list of reforms.
There has been much discussion of a right to appeal—this is something we have heard a lot from the Government as they try to justify their actions. I would point out that, through the Nationality and Borders Bill currently going through Parliament, the Government are attempting to take the rights of appeal away from asylum seekers. No matter what changes are proposed, one thing is clear: those with a vested interest in tearing up Parliament’s anti-sleaze rules should not be given the power to do so, and any amendment to these rules must be done fairly and with the proper amount of time taken and consideration given by this House. It is this House that invests the authority in the Committee on Standards to act on its behalf in considering the Commissioner’s reports, and considering whether or not to uphold those reports and the sanctions attached to them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is Chair of the Committee, will use time today to speak about the steps that the Committee is taking, to which you referred earlier, Mr Speaker.
As a new MP elected in 2019, I did not vote on the current rules, but I accept them, because they are the rules in place. I am a member of a smaller party. We do not have representation on the Standards Committee, but those are the rules and we accept them. If the processes are to be changed, that needs to be done properly and with consensus across the House. That is what the Leader of the House should have been looking to do last Wednesday: to act on behalf of the House, instead of his own party. That is what he should be doing today: listening to Members’ contributions and responding to them—I understand that he is not doing so. Instead, we have the Minister for the Cabinet Office responding to us. Can he let us know what exact involvement the Cabinet Office has in this House’s standards procedures? Certainly, wherever we go from here, without a cross-party consensus, reforms will simply have no legitimacy.
Like you, Mr Speaker, I hope for positive and constructive contributions from those in all parts of the House this afternoon, as we work out how to move forward from this scandal. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister will engage with this process. One of my constituents wrote to me saying:
“Mr Paterson’s resignation is not the end. It must be the beginning of an uncompromising campaign to end the corruption of our politics.”
I hope that we can begin that campaign, in this place, today.

Steve Barclay: Mr Speaker—

Hon. Members:: Where is the Prime Minister?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. To those who are shouting, “Where is the Prime Minister?” I say that the Prime Minister phoned me this morning, as did the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and they told me that neither of them could be with us. They have given their reasons and whether they are right, wrong or indifferent, I do not make judgments. I can only say on the behalf of the two people concerned—both leaders—that one is at COP26 and the other is visiting hospitals in the north-east. That is where the Prime Minister is, so I do not need to hear “Where is he?” all the way through the debate. I have explained it and Members can make their own decisions.

Steve Barclay: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing and opening this debate. The Government have been listening carefully to the legitimate concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House, both during and since last Wednesday’s debate. These matters are vitally important to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House.
Before I set out the Government’s position, I would like, first, to express my regret and that of my ministerial colleagues over the mistake made last week. We recognise that there are concerns throughout the House about the standards system and the process by which possible breaches of the code of conduct are investigated.

Peter Kyle: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Steve Barclay: I will in a moment.
Although sincerely held concerns clearly warrant further attention, the manner in which the Government approached last week’s debate conflated them with the response to an individual case. This House shares a collective interest in ensuring that the code of conduct reflects and fosters the highest standards of public life. The Government fully recognise that the Standards Committee is critical to that, including in respect of the important role performed by its Chairman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Peter Kyle: The Minister has already offered one apology; will he give another to residents who live in constituencies with MPs whom his Front-Bench team and Whips threatened with the withdrawal of spending in their communities to punish them for thinking about not voting for the amendment last week? Will he apologise to those residents, who are innocent bystanders? It is not their fault that money can be taken out of their communities simply because of something their MP does on a matter of conscience.

Steve Barclay: I think the hon. Gentleman prepared that intervention before he heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), who said that, despite his voting against the Government, that was a misrepresentation of the conversations he had.

Harriet Harman: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is speaking in this debate rather than the Leader of the House, whose job it is to deal with the standards decision? Is this not adding insult to injury and showing that the Government really do not understand the issue?

Steve Barclay: With due respect, first, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in the Chamber with me and, secondly, the right hon. and learned Lady well knows, not least as the Mother of the House, that the Cabinet Office overseas the Government response across Departments, including on a number of the issues covered by this issue.

Graham Stringer: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s apology on the behalf of the Government and am sure that other Members will, too, but will he commit to the House that future disciplinary matters are matters for the House, not for the Government?

Steve Barclay: As has been set out by the Prime Minister and other colleagues in the Government, we are committed to working on a cross-party basis, including with the Chair of the Standards Committee, which is why I recognise the important role he performs and had just picked that out in my remarks. We thank him and, indeed, the Committee’s lay members for their service, as we do the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I reiterate that the Government have previously taken and will continue to take a cross-party approach to issues around standards in this House.

Kevin Hollinrake: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), I received no pressure whatsoever in terms of the way I voted last week.
My right hon. Friend has set out a gracious apology for what happened last week, but will he concede that one thing that was not right with the amendment the Government supported was that the members of the proposed Committee were hand-picked? If the standards of this House are to be reformed, would it not be better for such a Committee to be chaired by somebody who is elected by this whole House and for the Committee members also to be elected in the normal way for Select Committee members?

Steve Barclay: As I just set out, we are committed to working on a cross-party basis and we regret that many hon. Members did not feel that they had been sufficiently consulted on the proposals last week. I simply refer to the article in The Times by the Chair of the Standards Committee, who said:
“I’m sure we need to review both the code of conduct and the way it operates.”
He went on to say that
“there are good arguments in favour of a more formal additional process, whereby a member could appeal against the sanction either to an outside body or to a sub-committee of the standards committee”.
It was to that that the debate turned last week.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Seema Malhotra: rose—

Steve Barclay: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Minister for giving way. Last week was UK Parliament Week, but it was not our finest hour. Does he agree that, at the very least, a message from this debate must be that we work in our constituents’ interests and in the public interest, and that the use of this House to work in the private interest to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds will not be tolerated?

Steve Barclay: I did not see that the Chair of the Standards Committee was seeking to grab my attention. We are committed to working on a cross-party basis and, with that in mind, of course I will give way to him.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and acknowledge the apology that he has given on behalf of the Government. None the less, the whole of Parliament is still in a bit of a hole. We still have a motion that was carried last week, which leaves the question of Mr Paterson’s conduct hanging in the air. Earlier today, I gave a draft of a motion that, were the Government to table it tonight, could be considered by the House tomorrow. I think that it would have the support of the whole House in clearing up the fact that, as you referred to, Mr Speaker, we have not actually decided whether Mr Paterson’s behaviour was inappropriate. I think the whole House now accepts that it was. Secondly, we have created a Committee which, I think, even the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is meant to be chairing it, does not want to be on any more.

John Whittingdale: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: It would be quite a good idea if we could clear this up tomorrow before we go into recess. I hope the Minister will say now that he will table that motion later on today.

Steve Barclay: I have been very clear that we will listen to the House and listen to the debate. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) just let me address the point made by the Chair of the Committee on Standards? Mr Paterson has now resigned, so it would not be possible for the House to endorse a sanction of suspension. I simply remind the House that he has suffered a serious personal tragedy. He has now resigned. In his statement, he said that he wants to continue his politics outside public life, and we should respect that. I hope, through your office, Mr Speaker, that there will be a way for us to engage on a cross-party basis, and that is what the Government will now redouble their efforts to engage on in the days ahead.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There is not anybody in this House who does not have the utmost sympathy for Mr Paterson’s plight, but we do have to remember that he said he would do exactly the same if the opportunity presented itself. I am grateful that the Minister has rendered his apology, but does he not think it more appropriate that the Prime Minister attends and gives his apology rather than being in the north-east of England defending the conduct of his police and crime commissioners, one of whom has had to resign over inappropriate remarks and another of whom is under investigation?

Steve Barclay: With respect, Mr Speaker dealt with that at the opening of this debate and made it clear that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the SNP had discussed with him the debate today.

Bob Seely: I abstained last week, so I thank the Government absolutely for the apology; it is completely the right thing to do. I want to put on record that, despite the fact that I abstained and I occasionally have the misfortune to vote against this Government, they continue to be nothing but supportive of both myself and the people of the Isle of Wight.

Steve Barclay: It is helpful to get that on the record.
The Government will now redouble our efforts to engage on a cross-party basis—and, indeed with you, Mr Speaker—in the days ahead, because we know what we can achieve when we do so. For example, in collaboration with others, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) worked hard when she was Leader of the House to establish the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. The scheme, to which the Government are wholly committed, is a model with many strengths. It includes an appeals process and an ability to adjudicate complex cases by virtue of its independent expert panel that is led by a High Court judge. Overall, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme brings with it the expectation of rigour, impartiality and fairness for both the complainant and respondent.

Simon Hoare: It would be of enormous help to the House if we could understand the Government’s thinking on the issue to which the hon.  Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) alluded. The amended motion last week was passed; I voted against it, but it was passed. What is its status now? There seems to be a general consensus that the rules that we deploy with regards to standards should be reviewed. Are they to be reviewed under the current auspices, or under the auspices of the amended motion last week, with some shadow or secondary standards Committee looking at them? I think the House would find it helpful to know that we are going to work through the procedures in existence today and effectively expunge the amended motion from the record of last week.

Steve Barclay: It is clear that the Committee agreed by the House last week will not be able to develop proposals without cross-party participation, which is why we are continuing discussions and listening to views from across the House about the best way forward.

Richard Burgon: Let me attempt to help the Government. Is not the root cause of all this MPs trying to get paid even more than the £82,000 a year that they already get? I should not have to remind the Government that 95% of the public get paid less than MPs, nor that being an MP is a full-time job. Chasing corporate cash is, quite simply, short-changing the public. Will the Minister agree to help to clean up politics by backing my Bill to ban second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh jobs for Members of Parliament?

Steve Barclay: I am not sure whether all Members on the Opposition Benches would support that proposal, because there is value in MPs having a continued connection with the world outside of politics. Banning all second jobs would have captured some in this House who work, for example, as doctors or nurses, and have supported the NHS through the pandemic. It makes sense to build on the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire and the procedure that she developed when she was Leader of the House.
We share a commitment to a system that encourages and communicates the right values, attitudes and behaviour, and that makes it clear to Members that in performing their parliamentary duties, they are expected always to act in the public interest, with courtesy, professionalism and respect.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to the Minister for his apology, as far as it went. Last week, it was quite clear that the Government did not agree with the recommendations in the Standards Committee’s report, so I am not clear today: are the Government saying that they now agree that Owen Paterson behaved badly and incorrectly, or are they just apologising for the process that they imposed on us last week?

Steve Barclay: What I am saying is that Mr Paterson has left Parliament; he has resigned, and therefore suspending him from the House would no longer be applicable.
It is the work of every Member to safeguard Parliament’s reputation by upholding its principles and abiding by its rules. Moving ahead, our shared responsibility is to identify and seize opportunities to improve the system—to ensure that it is robust and fair, that is commands the confidence of Members and our constituents, and that it is aligned with the fundamental principles of natural justice. To that end, I welcome forthcoming contributions  from colleagues. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that the Government will be listening carefully to the insights and views of Members from across the House.

Keir Starmer: I see that the Leader of the House is in the House, so it is a surprise to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the Dispatch Box today. He and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box many times, and it is always a pleasure, but I am sure he, like me, wishes that his days as the nightwatchman were a thing of the past. Defending valiantly against hostile bowling on a sticky wicket of his Prime Minister’s creation—it is as if 2019 never ended.
That is because last week the Prime Minister damaged himself, and, despite the bravery of some Conservative Members, he damaged his party; but most importantly, he damaged our democracy. We are fortunate in this country: voters may not always agree with politicians—they often do not—but they do trust that disagreements are sincere, that their representatives are acting in the way that they think is in the public interest, and that we can resolve our disagreements in debate and at the ballot box. But when the Prime Minister gives the green light to corruption, he corrodes that trust; when he says that the rules to stop vested interests do not apply to his friends, he corrodes that trust; and when he deliberately undermines those charged with stopping corruption, he corrodes that trust—and that is exactly what the Prime Minister did last week.
Now, today, the Prime Minister does not even have the decency to come here either to defend what he did or to apologise for his action. Rather than repairing the damage that he has done, the Prime Minister is running scared. When required to lead, he has chosen to hide. His concern, as always, is self-preservation, not the national interest. It is time for everyone in this House, whatever their party, to draw a line and to send a message to the Prime Minister: enough is enough; we will not stand by while he trashes our democracy.
The case of the former Member for North Shropshire is simple. Everyone in this House has enormous sympathy for the tragic circumstances in which he lost his wife. His pain and his anguish are unimaginable. I wish to express my condolences to him, as I did at the time. The Committee on Standards rightly took those awful circumstances into account when considering his conduct. There was a serious and robust process. He had prior notice of the charges against him. He had legal advisers with him. He was invited to appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and he did so. The findings were clear—
“an egregious case of paid advocacy.”
He took money to lobby Ministers. That is against the rules, as it is in any functioning democracy, and it is corrupt. The Prime Minister should have told the former Member for North Shropshire that the right thing to do was to accept his punishment. His duty of care demanded that he do that. His duty to defend standards demanded that he do that. Basic decency demanded that he do that. Instead, the British people were let down, and the former Member for North Shropshire was let down,  used as a pawn in an extraordinary attack on our commissioner for standards. We had threats to have money taken away from schools, hospitals and high streets unless Members voted to undermine the commissioner; Ministers sent out on the airwaves the morning after the vote to call for her to consider her position; and a sham committee proposed so that the Government could set the judge and jury for future cases. This was a deliberate course of action, but the Government were caught off guard by the public outcry and they have climbed down.
This was not a tactical mistake or an innocent misjudgment swiftly corrected by a U-turn—it was the Prime Minister’s way of doing business, a pattern of behaviour. When the Prime Minister’s adviser on the ministerial code found against the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister kept the Home Secretary and forced out the adviser. When the Electoral Commission investigated the Conservative party, the Prime Minister threatened to shut it down. When the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looked into the Prime Minister’s donations, the Prime Minister tried to take her down. Government corruption—there is no other word for it.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the Opposition give way?

Keir Starmer: I will in just a moment. It is said that the Prime Minister does not believe that the rules apply to him, but it is worse than that. He absolutely knows that the rules do apply to him; his strategy is to devalue the rules so that they do not matter to anyone any more and to go after those charged with enforcing the rules so that breaking the rules has less consequence. That way, politics becomes contaminated. Cynicism replaces confidence and trust. The taunt that politicians are all in it for themselves becomes accepted wisdom and, with that, the Prime Minister hopes to drag us all into the gutter with him. No way. It only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.
In the right hands, used in the right way and for the right reasons, politics can work, because politics can be a noble cause to build a better country and a better world. For some, it is also a great personal sacrifice. The plaques in this House to Airey Neave and Jo Cox, and the empty seat where just weeks ago Sir David Amess sat, are testament to that price. If we are to honour their memory, we have to defeat the politics of cynicism propagated by this Prime Minister.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. One of the rules we have always observed in this place is that we do not whip House business. Just about everything that has happened since last week can be traced back to the determination of the Government to whip that. Does he share my concern that we have heard nothing from those on the Treasury Bench today to say that, if we on this side of the House participate in future exploration of the rules, there will be no repetition of whipping the votes either for or against when those measures return to this House? Indeed, without that undertaking, it would be very difficult for anyone on this side to accept that what we hear from those on the Treasury Bench is a good faith exercise.

Keir Starmer: I do share that concern. That would be a very easy thing for the Government to say today, and we have another two hours to run in this debate, so there is plenty of time to say it.

Peter Bone: I could not agree more with the Leader of the Opposition that House business should never be whipped. Can he say whether he whipped his Members last week?

Keir Starmer: No. Our Members did not need whipping to know what the right decision was.
There are good ideas across the House about how we can improve standards to restore the trust that the Prime Minister has broken. There has been talk about cross-party working this afternoon. We are willing to work cross party and with the expertise of the Standards Committee to make that happen, but let me be loud and clear: we are not willing to work with the Government on their plans to weaken standards. There will be no cross-party agreement on weakening standards.
There are other ideas. The Labour party has long called for the MPs’ code of conduct to ban paid directorships and consultancy roles. The current code of conduct recognises that those roles are a potential conflict of interest but does not ban them. We voted to fix that in 2015, but we were blocked by the Government. A change along those lines has been recommended by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life, but there has been no action by the Government. It is time to put that right.
In addition, the revolving door between ministerial office and the private sector is still in full swing. Ministers can regulate a company one minute and work for it the next. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is too weak to provide the check and balance. It is time to shut the revolving door by banning those job swaps. This weekend, we were reminded of the appalling inevitable pattern: a large donation to the Conservative party, a stint as party treasurer, then an appointment to the House of Lords. The regulator has been ignored by the Prime Minister and broken in the process. There is no doubt that the House of Lords needs fundamental democratic reform, but we can act now to toughen the rules over appointments.

Bill Cash: The Leader of the Opposition is a former Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2003, under a Labour Government, the Committee on Standards set up the investigatory panel that contained rules of natural justice if it were to be implemented, which it was not in this case. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions, would he agree that the rules of natural justice could be avoided where an investigatory panel could have been set up but was not?

Keir Starmer: I understand the point, but let us remind ourselves of the process. The independent commissioner examines the complaint and comes to a finding. The charge is known and the individual can be legally represented and advised; I understand that the former Member for North Shropshire was legally advised throughout the process. The finding of the commissioner can then be appealed to the Committee, which can agree or disagree with the commissioner. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but on occasion, I think the Committee has disagreed, and therefore the appeal has been allowed and the individual has not faced a sanction.
Before that Committee, the individual can be legally advised, and I think the former Member for North Shropshire had two legal teams in the process. He was able to make a statement setting out his case and his defence. Every point that was made in his defence last Wednesday had been made by him to the Committee, as anybody who has read the report will know. It was rejected by the Committee. He was then questioned for a number of hours by Committee members. That is an appeal. That is due process. That is a much stronger position than millions of working people up and down the country face if they are disciplined in their workplace. We owe it to them to recommend it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will make some progress.
On all the areas where we can improve, we can work together to restore trust and strengthen standards, but instead we have been invited into a sham process that is designed to force out the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are told that the main problem is that there was not a right of appeal, when there clearly is. That is why we have no interest in talking to the Government about how to weaken the current system.
The lack of common ground is fundamental. The Government want to weaken the system because the system keeps investigating and finding against them. The best solution is the simple one: they should change their behaviour. The Prime Minister should show some leadership. He should send a clear message that the rules apply to everyone, and that those enforcing the rules to prevent corruption will be supported by the Government, rather than forced out.

Alison McGovern: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that the sham is continuing even today? Not only is the Prime Minister not here, despite the importance of this issue, but the Leader of the House—who is here, which is right, because it is a House issue—is completely silent and the Minister who is in the place where the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister should be cannot even answer the basic question, from either side of the House, about how we proceed now and whether the Government will accept the recommendation from the Chair of the Standards Committee.

Keir Starmer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister should be here. Leadership is about taking responsibility, and if there is an apology to be made, that apology should come from the top, just as the direction came from the top last week to engage in this business in the first place.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I will just make some progress, and then I will give way.
The Prime Minister could start by making three simple commitments. First, he should work with us to ensure that the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) faces a recall petition. It is completely unacceptable for a Member to be found guilty of sexually harassing junior staff, yet avoid the judgment of the electorate on  the basis of a loophole. The Government have hidden behind that loophole. It is now time to come out of hiding.
Secondly, the Prime Minister needs to agree that no Member found guilty of egregious breaches of the MPs’ code of conduct can be recommended for a peerage. The Government cannot reward bad behaviour and corruption with a job for life making the laws of the land.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister must commit to a full and transparent investigation into Randox and the Government contracts. What do we know? We know that Randox has been awarded Government contracts worth over £600 million, without competition or tender. We know that the former Member for North Shropshire lobbied for Randox. We also know that he sat in on a call between Randox and the Minister responsible for handling the health contracts. Against that backdrop, there is obviously a concern that the use of taxpayers’ money and the effectiveness of our pandemic response may have been influenced by paid advocacy from the former Member for North Shropshire. If the Prime Minister is interested in rooting out corruption, he needs to launch a full investigation. If the Prime Minister is interested in restoring trust, we need full transparency, with all the relevant correspondence published—no ifs and no buts.
Last week, the Prime Minister damaged himself, he damaged his party and he damaged our democracy. He led his party through the sewers, and the stench lingers. This week, he had the chance to clean up, apologise to the country and finally accept that the rules apply to him and his friends, but instead of stepping up, he has hidden away. Instead of clearing up his mess, he has left his side knee-deep in it. Instead of leading from the front, he has cowered away. He is not a serious leader, and the joke is not funny any more.

Peter Bottomley: It would be tempting for each of us on all sides of the House to get into a mud bath and start throwing things at each other. We could go back in time—I have got a little list as well—but I do not think this is the right time. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on requesting this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for saying last week that he thought we ought to have it. I think there is cross-party support for what we are doing now. The only positive thing I can say to the Government on this is that if they think they are going to make a mistake in future, they should talk to me first and we can make it together.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on acknowledging on Thursday that things had been done wrong and need putting right. I am sorry to speak in advance of the Chair of the Committee on Standards because I would like to know what are the terms of his motion that could restore the consequences of the vote that we ought to have taken, and the way we ought to have taken it, on Wednesday. It is clear that the House should have backed the Committee, and we need to find a way of showing that. We ought to acknowledge that in future, those who resign from Parliament, whether they are a Government or an Opposition Member, should not leave without making a decision on a firm  recommendation from the Committee on Standards, with Members of Parliament and with independent members. We must find a way of making that plain. My right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say that there is widespread support for reforming the system. I am not part of that support. I believe the system does work, can work, and should work. I would be interested to know what the Committee on Standards wants to recommend, and I will look at that with an open mind. Just because it was right for me 18 years ago when I sat on the Committee with Martin Bell, does not mean it cannot be improved.
As well as responding to what we ought to have done on Wednesday—that is the point of this debate—I would like to hear how the Government will respond to Lord Evans’s report that came out this week. It has four and a half pages of recommendations. This afternoon is not the time to go through those, but we ought to have a coherent approach that helps to ratchet up our observance and recognition of standards. Some have introduced the question of whether MPs should have outside jobs, besides being Members of Parliament. We have 100 or so who are Ministers, so they have an extra job as well as being a Member of Parliament. One example I often use is Peter Thurnham, who when made redundant set up his own business and became a successful engineering business owner. Should he have had to give that up? Should Michael Foot have given up his writing or his royalties when he was here? I think we should take great care about that.
I believe that any Member of Parliament who declares outside earnings should do so not just in writing, but face to face with the registrar. They should explain what they are doing, and could be reminded what the limits are of what they do. The one thing I would say to the face of my former colleague, Owen Paterson, is that if we take on a consultancy with a business, the one thing we know is that we cannot do anything that could be interpreted as lobbying or in the interests of that business.

Kevin Brennan: I declare a small earning as a musician outside this House—[Interruption.] It is very small. Should an additional point about public appointments perhaps be part of this debate—we could add it to the excellent list put forward by the Leader of the Opposition? Is there real concern that the Government’s attitude towards public appointments is straying away from the rules as overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments? In particular, with the forthcoming appointment for the chair of Ofcom, the whole process is being run, rerun, truncated and, frankly, there are suspicions that it is being tricked up to favour a particular candidate.

Peter Bottomley: I am biased in favour of Paul Dacre because he and I were working to get the killers of Stephen Lawrence charged and convicted. If I was asked whether he is the right person to chair Ofcom I would say no, but I have not been asked.
Many will want to speak in this debate, Mr Speaker, so I will try not to repeat myself. I believe that the present system can work if we make it work. Those of us who find that others have taken a different view to the propriety of what we have done ought to trust their judgment more than we trust our own, and not just go on saying, “I thought I was right at the time.” We can each do things that are wrong. If we do we should say  so, say sorry, and try to let the House move on. That way we can ratchet up the standards of our achievements, as well as of our behaviour.

Pete Wishart: As always, it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the Father of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. She introduced it in a means and a manner significantly different from what we had last week, and I welcome her comments.
What a few days this has been. What a week we have had to endure as politicians who serve in this House. Our politics has been taken to a very dark place indeed, with the sense that rules have been torn up and the feeling that we have returned to the worst days of Tory sleaze—sleaze that we thought had been buried and was gone, never to return. There is a sense of outrage among the public that I have never seen in the 20 years that I have been in this place. That is palpable and tangible in our bulging email boxes, with angry constituents demanding to know what an earth is going on, and demanding that we put it right and sort this mess out.
One has to ask, what on earth were the Government thinking of? What were they trying to achieve? What did they want to do? What did they think was going to happen, introducing that motion the way they did? I almost feel sorry for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If there was a short straw for turning up to try to defend this Government’s action, he most certainly picked it today. It should be his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House leading this debate. It was him that brought that grubby motion to the House last Wednesday, it was him that defended it to the hilt, and it was him that took up nearly half the time that we were allowed to have that debate. He should be standing at the Dispatch Box today defending the Government’s action and telling us what he is going to do. He always likes to remind me of battles past; today, he is like the brave Sir Robin from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, bravely running away from doing his duty at the Dispatch Box.
We know that this was a plot hatched between the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip, designed, approved and orchestrated through No. 10, with the weight of the whipping operation that we saw last Wednesday. This goes all the way to the very top. What the two of them did was open the Tory Pandora’s box marked “sleaze”—and what a grubby, rotten receptacle it has turned out to be. They are a Government prepared to reinvent the rules if they do not like them—a Government so arrogant and entitled that they believe they can get away with whatever they want.

Stephen Flynn: My hon. Friend mentions the Pandora’s box of sleaze. He will be familiar with the corruption allegations that appeared in The Sunday Times yesterday following an investigation by openDemocracy. Does he not believe, as I do, that that is a matter not just for this House and for Parliament but for the police?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I want to get round to that particular case. I did note that yesterday. I was here for cash for honours mark 1; this is cash for honours mark 2.0, and I will refer to that specifically.

Margaret Hodge: As the hon. Member is on the topic, does he not agree that another aspect that has created great anger and concern in our communities is the funding of political parties? Let us look particularly at the Russians and how they are funding the Conservative party: Lubov Chernukhin has given £2.1 million; Alexander Temerko—a part-owner of a company that is trying to build an underwater cable—has given £1.3 million; and Viktor Fedotov, who also owns that company, has given money to the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the Minister for corporate social responsibility, the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Is this right?

Pete Wishart: That was a long intervention but a necessary one. The right hon. Lady is spot on. The way that donations have been going into the Tory party needs to be properly investigated, and I am going to suggest a way that that should be done.
We are on day six of this. For six days, it has dominated political discourse in our media, in the public and in our communities and our constituencies. Nobody—no Minister who has presided over something that goes on day after day—usually survives that. It shows no sign of abating or going away.
I do not know whether the public will accept the apology made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; I suspect not. I do not think that was what the public wanted to hear. I do not think they were saying, “Yes, we want to hear this Government standing there saying, ‘Sorry, we’ve got this totally wrong.’” I think the public want to hear this Government being just that little bit more contrite and just that little bit more accommodating with the feeling and the sentiment out there in our constituencies. Our constituents are angry. Our constituents are fed up. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to do a little bit better than that.

Wera Hobhouse: We have established that the corrupt and bad behaviour of some MPs damages all of us, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed now is the commitment of every single Member to strengthen, rather than weaken, the standards process and the rules around it?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is absolutely right and spot on. That is exactly what is required. When I hear Conservative Members talking about reforming some of the rules and regulations to replace what we have in place, I am not hearing an attempt to strengthen them to make them better and more accountable. What I am hearing from them is, “Let’s weaken them. Let’s make sure that people can get off and get away with things. If we don’t like them, let’s rewrite them and do them all again.” That is what we are hearing from them.
I feel sorry for Conservative Back Benchers. The way they have been treated by the Government Front Bench almost approaches cruelty. They have been marched all the way to the top of the hill by the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset—the grand old Duke of York—and marched all the way down again. They have not just been marched all the way down, however. They have been met with a barrage, a volley of bad constituents’ emails and the consternation of the people they represent. I feel sorry  for the Conservative hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen here today for having to take that. I hope they know who is to blame for what they have to endure.

Carol Monaghan: Of course, this is not the first time we have seen this Prime Minister do things that have shocked our constituents. The last time I had a mailbag similar to this weekend’s was for the illegal Prorogation of Parliament a couple of years’ ago, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) took to the Supreme Court and exposed. The level of outrage over that incident is similar to the level of outrage over this issue. The Government have learned nothing.

Pete Wishart: Absolutely. There are spikes of interest from our constituents about the business of this place and my hon. Friend is right to mention that one. That was a busy, busy week for Members of Parliament. The other one, of course, was Barnard Castle. I do not think we have quite reached the heights of Barnard Castle yet in terms of the response from the public, but we are getting very close. As this matter goes on and we find it unresolved, we will start to get into that territory.
I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. I sense he is not listening very carefully to me, but I listened very carefully to him and I still do not know the Government’s position. Maybe he could help us. I do not know if there is summing up today, but we need to hear from the Government about what they are going to do now. What I think I heard was that they are sorry for this mess. Fair enough, they are sorry for this mess. That’s great, we will accept their apology. But now tell us what you are going to do.
The motion setting up the kangaroo court committee of corruption is still in place. That is the policy of this House. We need to hear the Government say clearly that they are removing it, and are finding some means and method to ensure it is no longer a part of the business of the House. We need to hear them say that they are prepared to accept independent investigation and that they will support the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, and his Committee in doing its work. We need to hear them say that. We also need to hear them say that they are going back to that moment just before the Division Bell rang last Wednesday and back to the position we were in before any of this nonsense started.

Martin Docherty: I have a concern about my hon. Friend’s proposition. Last week, regardless of whether one agreed with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), the Government utilised it as a motion of confidence in themselves. I therefore have no confidence, and I am sure my hon. Friend has no confidence, that any of this is going to change.

Pete Wishart: Absolutely. That is why we need clarity and we have to hear it today. The suggestion, I think from the Chair of the Committee, was that we need a  motion to be tabled for tomorrow so that we can deal effectively with the former Member for North Shropshire. We have to have that before the House, so we are able to ensure our judgment is passed on what we believe are the consequences of his actions.
Another issue is the disgraceful attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. They were co-ordinated—there is absolutely no way we can get around that. They came from the top. They were directed. You do not attack the credibility of the Standards Commissioner by saying disrespectful things about her if you do not have the permission to do that and say that. What they had in mind was a softening-up exercise, because they know that the Prime Minister is going to be investigated again. They know that a number of issues still have to be resolved about his personal behaviour and conduct. I think the undermining and neutering of the Standards Committee was a deliberate process and it has to stop—it has to end.
For the Prime Minister, it is almost like a revolving door of investigation, whether it is for breaking the ministerial code, acting unlawfully or soliciting dodgy donations for luxury holidays and home refurbishments. One thing we can commit to today is saying that this House has full faith and trust in our Standards Commissioner and that we will allow her to do her job. The undermining and disgraceful attacks must now end.
But the true shocker of the past couple of days is cash for honours 2.0. I really did not think, following Tony Blair being questioned under caution by the Metropolitan police 15 years ago, that we would be back to this place so quickly. It was only a couple of Parliaments ago that Tony Blair had to face questions about donations and the House of Lords. The only difference that I have seen in the course of the past couple of decades is that the price to get into the House of Lords has gone up from £1 million under new Labour to £3 million under the Conservatives. There is Tory inflation for you.
It now seems that nearly all the past treasurers of the Conservative party of later years are in that place, wearing their ermine and taking part in the legislative decisions of this country. The only characteristic they seem to have—the only defining feature that seems to get them a place in that House—is that they are able to give several million pounds to the Government. The Environment Secretary said yesterday that they were in the Lords for their philanthropy. I think the public will probably assess that the accounts of the Conservative party are just about the worst and least deserving good cause that there is in this land.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does he think that it is a coincidence that the 22 largest donors to the Conservative party now hold peerages and sit in the House of Lords?

Pete Wishart: I do not, I have to say, because I think that place is just so corrupted. It is a receptacle in this place for donors to either of the big parties, and I have to include the Liberals in that, too, because some of their activities around the House of Lords are just as bad as those of the two main parties.
What I have done today is ask the Metropolitan police to investigate these appointments under the provisions of section 1(2) of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. That Act states:
“If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour”.
I have now asked the Metropolitan police to investigate the activities of the Conservative party and the awarding of places in the House of Lords.
I will say ever so gently to my friends in the Labour party: stop putting people in that place. Stop giving it legitimacy and credibility. We do not need a Gordon Brown commission. We just need you guys as the Opposition party to say that you will abolish it. It is a corrupt circus, and it is the high point of deference in the class system. To think that a Labour party would defend that place and put people in it is beyond ridiculous. Grow up, get a sense of this and help us get rid of that appalling circus down the corridor.
Last week, the Tories royally cocked up and have had to beat an embarrassing, hasty retreat. Their next move might now define the rest of their parliamentary term. Accept this. They have to do more than apologise. They have to show contrition. They have to show that they really mean this. That is the task and job for this Conservative Government. They have to take us back to the point before the Division bell rang last Wednesday. We do not want to “reform” the standards process; we want it to continue its work, but nothing will happen until we get back to that point. They must stop rewarding donors with places in the House of Lords. It is now up to them to show the contrition that the public want, show that they are really sorry, and get us back to where we were.

Alberto Costa: It is always a pleasure to follow the amusements of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who I am sure would be delighted to have the title of Lord of Perthshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate; I work with her on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and have a great deal of respect for her.
I am one of the longest-serving Members of Parliament on the Committee on Standards. Probably very few hon. Members know that, because I very rarely raise any issue in this Chamber about standards matters, but I frequently raise my concerns with the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who will speak very shortly. He will no doubt inform the House that I have consistently and regularly made known, at every opportunity and every Committee meeting, my deep concerns about the process by which the Committee operates. As the only lawyer member of the Committee until very recently, I would like to share with the House where the problems lie.
There are two principal issues at fault, both caused by the House of Commons and its Standing Orders. First, the principal duty of the Committee on Standards, as outlined in Standing Order No. 149, is
“to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner”.
That is my primary duty as a member of the Committee, but a few pages along, Standing Order No. 150 states that one of the
“principal duties of the Commissioner shall be…to advise the Committee”.
We are in the odd position where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, acting with the utmost integrity, presents her findings to the Committee; we listen to her findings; we then invite Members to give their submissions; and at the end, during our deliberations, we have the commissioner back in without the MP in the room who has been complained of.
The commissioner is put in that unenviable conflicting role because of us, and she attends the Committee as the principal adviser to it. There am I, sitting in the Committee, having heard her submissions and then heard the other side—the MP’s submissions—only to have the commissioner back in the room ready and willing to answer, wearing that second hat that we have given her. That puts the commissioner in an unfair position, and it is where I have long argued that there is the potential for a breach of natural justice.
Let me go further. The Leader of the Opposition said that many of our constituents would be envious if they had the process that we have for adjudicating complaints, but let me say this very clearly: our Committee is a Committee of 14 people. There are seven excellent laypeople, who are of the utmost integrity, and seven MPs, who I would also like to say are of the utmost integrity, but none of us, myself included, has any judicial experience—none. I cannot think of any private or public body that adjudicates on, regulates or disciplines its members that has a committee of 14 people.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alberto Costa: Not just now.
In the real world, where I used to advise as a lawyer, it is common for the HR process to have a panel of three. It is so common that only last year, this House approved setting up the independent expert panel by which all claims of bullying or sexual harassment against any of us are adjudicated. They are adjudicated not by me and my 13 colleagues on the Committee on Standards, but by former High Court judges and others with the highest level of legal experience, in—guess what?—a panel of three, not a panel of 14.
Sir Stephen Irwin, who set up the Independent Expert Panel on our behalf, has created, as one would expect a judge to create, a very simple set of appeal rules. For Members who come before that sub-panel and feel that they have not been treated in a manner that they think is in accordance with natural justice, and have a ground, Sir Stephen has set up a system of appeal to a further body of three, a body that he chairs. Why is it good enough for claims of bullying or sexual harassment against MPs, but not for claims of paid consultancies against MPs? It is inconsistent that we have this split system of adjudicating on MPs.

Kevin Brennan: Is it that novel a concept to be judged by a jury of one’s peers—or by seven lay people, for that matter?

Alberto Costa: I will tell the House what is most certainly not novel. Let us imagine that in any normal court of law, whether civil or criminal, there are two parties,  a claimant and a respondent, and at the end of the trial the judge and the jury invite one of those parties into the room to deliberate with them. That is the system that we currently have, and it caused by us—by our allowing this conflicting, unenviable role of the commissioner, in which she is the investigator and presenter of the case to the Committee, and then comes in wearing a second, adviser’s hat. That is unfair on her, and we need to change the system.

Bill Cash: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and wrote an excellent article in The Times today. Could he let me know whether, at any stage in this inquiry, he expressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Standards his view that the procedure being followed in the Committee failed the test of natural justice, and what, if he did, was the Chairman’s response?

Alberto Costa: Yes. I consistently argue across the Chamber to the hon. Member for Rhondda that our current system must be improved. I will go further, and repeat a phrase that I used during one of the Committee’s meetings earlier this year. I said that the way in which we were dealing with this—the process, not the integrity of any of the parties involved—was, in my opinion, repugnant to the principles of natural justice. I later received a call from the hon. Gentleman, explaining to me that members of the Committee were uncomfortable with the comments that I had made. Let me say to the House again that it is imperative that in the interests of all our constituents—

Peter Grant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a member of any Select Committee to make a lengthy public statement about proceedings of that Committee which have been conducted entirely in private? I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: I have listened to the hon. Member because I want to call the Chair of the Committee next, and I am sure that he will also inform the House of his views on what has gone on.

Alberto Costa: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The reason I am saying this—and I understand why the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has made that comment—is that I have tried my very best, for almost two years, to consistently raise problems not with any individual case but with the process that we have in this system, and it is the process that needs to change.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alberto Costa: I want to move on, as other Members want to speak.
I believe that there is an important role for the Committee on Standards, in particular with its lay people. I think that it ought to be a Committee that drafts and amends the code of conduct and the associated rules. I do not think that the Committee on Standards is the appropriate body for me or my 13 colleagues to adjudicate on Members against whom a complaint has been brought. But I would go further: I think that the commissioner needs to be empowered and that the rules need to be clarified. The commissioner should have the  same role as she does with the independent expert panel, which is that she investigates and presents her case to the panel, but importantly, she does not advise the judges on that panel. Also, we need to amalgamate the IEP and bring in more former High Court judges to help us in this process, to ensure that Members of the highest governing body of the United Kingdom—this House of Commons—are disciplined by people who have the requisite judicial experience when it comes to regulatory and disciplinary matters.

Alistair Carmichael: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the independent complaints and grievance procedures. Does he now think, with the benefit of hindsight, that he was wrong to vote against them?

Alberto Costa: I want this process to move forward. I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman; we have worked together on a cross-party basis on a number of things. I am trying to give the House the benefit of my experience. I was the only lawyer on that Committee until recently. If Members do not want a system that is adjudicated upon by the best people in our land, they are not just doing themselves ill service; they are doing their constituents ill service as well.
I want to wrap up, because I know that many Members want to speak. I say once again that the lay people on the Committee on Standards and the commissioner are people of the utmost integrity, but being of the utmost integrity does not mean that they are suitable for adjudicating on disciplinary matters affecting Members of the House of Commons. Mr Speaker, I invite you to assist this House in coming together and moving towards the process that we rightly adopted for the IEP, in amalgamating the IEP and in having a panel of very senior people with judicial experience, so that we never again have the situation that we had last week, when a Member felt that he did not receive the proper system that he felt entitled to receive. I stand by the comments I made in the report—my name was on that report—and I look forward to coming back to the House with a draft of an amended code of conduct and a new process. I also look forward to hearing the Chairman of the Standards Committee finally confirming to this House that, at almost every Committee meeting, he has listened to my concerns about process.

Lindsay Hoyle: I now call the Chair of the Standards Committee, Chris Bryant.

Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate. Secondly, I want to thank all the members of the Standards Committee. As the House can tell, we do not always agree on everything in the Committee. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) is absolutely right to say that he has often raised process issues. I think he would also confirm that, quite often, the legal advice that is provided to the Committee by the House has disagreed with him very strongly. There are legitimate issues that we have to address, and that is why we are engaged in a code of conduct review. I take his points very seriously, and I have spoken to him many  times on the phone, as he has said. He sounded a bit angrier with me in the debate just now than I think he really means. I am grateful to everyone on the Committee.
Let me start with a very simple point. I do not think we do ourselves any favours if we say that voters do not care about standards in public life. I do not know whether they care or not; I suspect that they do, but I do not know for certain and the opinion polls vary on this. We have always prided ourselves as a country on not being corrupt, unlike some other countries in the world, but that is not really the point. The question is not whether Mrs Jones at No. 32 cares about standards in Parliament; it is about whether we care about standards in public life and in Parliament. Every time we say that this does not really matter or that voters do not care about it, we give another excuse for bad behaviour.
I might also say that those of us who are MPs at any one time only hold our place here on trust. Sorry, this is going to sound a bit pious, but I think it is true none the less: we have a duty, not just to our constituents, but to the nation, and not just to this generation of voters, but to future generations of voters, to protect the reputation of Parliament rather than undermine it. Parliamentary democracy based on universal suffrage has not been around all that long; it has not even managed 100 years yet. It is a precious thing, and we need to defend it.
My second point is that independence is central to any standards system for the House. Anyone involved in a disciplinary process, either as a defendant or a complainant—we must remember that quite often there are complainants, many of whom are victims—needs to be completely assured that those involved in adjudicating the matter will always approach the decision with a fair and open mind, without fear or favour. That is what all 14 members of the Standards Committee seek to do.
That is why it is a breach of the code for any Member of the House to seek to lobby a member of the Standards Committee. We must be allowed to do our work without any interference. Sadly, as I have told you before, Mr Speaker, over the past 12 months I have been lobbied repeatedly by a significant number of hon. Members about their own or other Members’ cases. I have always sought to be polite, but extremely robust in response. I apologise if I have seemed rude, but this is an important part of maintaining the independence of the House and of the system.
The same applies to Whips. Some of my best friends are Whips—to get the confession in early—but I gently urge Whips to exercise a self-denying ordinance when it comes to Standards Committee reports, as has always been the case in every single instance in the past. Of course there are matters on which the Government have an understandable interest—matters of policy and finance—but it is inappropriate for anyone to whip House disciplinary matters. By definition, that turns our decision into a political one rather than a quasi-judicial one. Government should serve the House in standards matters, not the other way around.
The independence of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is also vital. She must be able to get on with her work without being repeatedly attacked, briefed against, lied about, shouted at, bullied, threatened or generally undermined. I think I am quoting a former Government Chief Whip when I say that the recent campaign against her has been very unedifying. It has been worse than that—it has been cowardly and unfair.
I honestly think the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should have apologised not just for last week, but to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That would be the right, gentlemanly thing to do. May I, on behalf of, I think, the whole House, apologise to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for what she has been put through in recent days?
I want to address the question of due process and ensuring a fair hearing. It is an important distinction that we on the Standards Committee are not a court of law. Indeed, there would be dangers if we were to become a court of law that we would all have to be legally represented. That might lead to a process that benefited the wealthy, who could afford lawyers, over those who could not. We are a Select Committee of the House, and sometimes we deal with matters that are really rather minor and that we would not want to bother a judge with, such as the use of parliamentary stationery.
I want to make it absolutely clear, however, as Speaker’s Counsel did repeatedly as we went through both this investigation and every other investigation since I have been Chair of the Committee, that we have bent over backwards to ensure that any hon. Member gets a fair hearing. Due notice of the charges has always been ensured, as has a full opportunity to put one’s case in writing and/or in person, a chance to make arguments in defence or in mitigation and the right to appeal the commissioner’s findings to the Committee. There is a right of appeal—it is an appeal to the Committee. Every lawyer I have seen comment on our process who has read the report has said that it was an entirely fair one, and of course we have taken legal advice throughout. Let me just quote from one—

Bill Cash: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will give way, but before I do, let me say that the hon. Gentleman made a speech last week, and he has repeated this point today, about the additional measures available to us in the Standing Orders, but he should understand that those panels are there only where there are disputed facts. In this case, there were no disputed facts at all. So the point that I suspect he is about to make is completely otiose.

Bill Cash: First, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to appendix 2, set out before the Committee by Mr Paterson. Secondly, let me make the simple point that when the Committee in 2003, which was composed of only three Conservatives, six Labour and two Liberal Democrats, decided on the investigatory panel, this was what was said:
“The proposal for an Investigatory Panel—
which is for serious, contested cases, as this one clearly is—
“is designed to deal with cases (expected to arise only infrequently) which…meet both the following criteria:
proof of the complaint would be likely to lead to the imposition of a serious penalty on the Member; and
there appeared to be significant contested issues of fact which would not properly be decided unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint.”
The hon. Gentleman obviously does not agree with me on that, but the facts speak for themselves; there are seriously contested facts and they are disputed.

Chris Bryant: I make two points. The first is that the hon. Gentleman basically just agreed with me wholeheartedly, because the whole point of these panels is that they are there only where there are disputed facts and there were no disputed facts in this case. The second point, where I would wholeheartedly agree with him, is that the facts speak for themselves—they certainly did in this case. Mr Paterson at no stage denied that he had engaged in the various different meetings with Government Ministers and officials. So I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s argument falls on both counts.
Let me just read the words of Thomas de la Mare, a highly respected lawyer at Blackstone Chambers, who reviewed this matter. He did not do so for the Committee; he has published this himself. He says:
“If the decision-maker has had the 17 witness statements, read them and rightly found them to be irrelevant there is no conceivable breach of natural justice in not calling them in…The idea that this pretty exhaustively conducted 2 stage case of inquiry by the commissioner and then full review by the Committee evinces a broken system or justifies the egregious step of changing the rules mid game is absurd.. All in all the Cmtee decision looks pretty bomb proof: balanced, fair once you understand how relevance of material works, carefully reasoned (and probably carefully lawyered) and the very appeal/review of the Commissioner OP”—
Owen Paterson—
“wanted. Given this what has happened next is tawdry”.
So what next? In the end, the Standards Committee exists only to serve the House and to try to protect the reputation of the House. First, we are already reviewing the code of conduct. There are perfectly legitimate arguments to be made about how we should change various different elements. MPs are now regulated by so many different bodies that it is sometimes difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to understand exactly what the rules are that affect them. I hate the idea that a right hon. or hon. Member will be tripped up by a rule that they simply did not understand through some inadvertent action. So I do want to make sure that we have greater clarity in the way that the whole of our code of conduct and guide to the rules is available to Members.

Bob Seely: The hon. Gentleman speaks with his customary eloquence, and he knows how much his speech was impactful last week. Are there specific issues that he would like to see improved or does he think that the current process is fundamentally sound?

Chris Bryant: I think we gave Owen Paterson a fair hearing; in all honesty, it is very difficult to argue that we did not. I have wracked my brain as to measures that we might evince, but I am only the Chair of the Committee and want to allow the Committee to come to a view on reforms that we might suggest, although I have suggested in the newspapers over the past few days a few things that I personally would like to see.
The important point is that we are reviewing the code of conduct, as we are required to do in every Parliament. We did not manage to do it in the 2015 or 2017 Parliaments because we kept on having general elections, so it would be great if we did not have a general election for a while so that we could finish our work on the code. It is worth saying that we published the terms of reference for our code of conduct review on 22 September 2020 and have been engaged in the review since then. We took evidence from the Leader of the House earlier this year.
There is an argument for improvements to some of the process. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire knows, I personally favour clarifying what we do about appeals. There is currently an appeal, and a Member can appeal to the Committee on any basis whatsoever, whereas if we were to have a de jure appeal instead of a de facto appeal process, we would need a set of criteria against which a Member could appeal, which might actually restrict Members’ rights of appeal rather than enhance them. That is a difficulty that we have to deal with.
There is an issue in respect of whether a Member should be able to appeal against the sanction rather than the findings, and I am quite happy to listen to what the Committee eventually decides on that, as I am sure the House will want to do as well.

Craig Mackinlay: rose—

Chris Bryant: I think the hon. Member came into the Chamber only recently, but if he has been present, I am happy to listen to him.

Craig Mackinlay: I have just been outside the Bar of the House.
The hon. Member is making a point about sanctions; I wonder whether this might be helpful. I am interested to hear that there is progress on a new code of conduct. If we put the specific case aside, does he appreciate that there is a world of difference between a sanction of nine days and a sanction of 11 days, for obvious reasons? Therein might be the reason for an appeal, because of the changes and outcomes that could flow from it that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) so ably put forward.

Chris Bryant: I am not inimical to that view—there is a perfectly decent argument that perhaps there should be an appeal against sanctions—but in the Committee we try to stand by precedence, because otherwise we would be unfair. We list all the mitigating and aggravating factors in each of our reports and, at the end, come to a conclusion based on the precedents we have met. My suspicion is that any appeal body would do exactly the same, so I am not sure that it would necessarily change things, but there is an argument for bringing in such a thing. I note that the hon. Member referred to leaving this case aside, which is the most important thing for me: in the words of the Leader of the House, we cannot conflate one case with change of the system. In the end, that is the precise, polar opposite of justice: that is injustice and has brought the House into disrepute.
I have only a couple more points to make—

John Baron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Hon. Members: “No.”]

Chris Bryant: Well, I like the hon. Gentleman, so yes, I will.

John Baron: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is speaking with great eloquence, as usual, on this subject. I suggest to him that reform is a natural, evolving process—of course it is; no system is perfect—but, by and large, the system works quite well, so whatever the hon. Member does, will he make sure that it is transparent, as far as he is able to, and that it progresses as speedily  as possible? What I take away from this debate and from last week’s vote is that the right thing to do is to let the Committee produce its recommendations and for the House to consider them in full debate.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for that point. It is true that the right way for the House to progress, on a cross-party basis and with the advice of independent members of the public, is for us to complete our job of work, which we will have done by Christmas, I am sure, and perhaps even by the end of this month—I do not want to prejudge what the Committee will decide—and to publish that. There will then be an opportunity for the whole House to consider the matter. We would probably want then to produce a further report, which would be our final report on the draft code and its operation.
Incidentally, the current system has not been in place for very long. The mixture of the independent expert panel for ICGS cases and the Standards Committee has been in place, arguably, only since 7 January 2019 when the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) introduced really important changes to the House, which were much valued by staff and Members across the House and by the public. In fact, the independent expert panel started its work only in January of this year, There is this idea that we should suddenly tear it all up and start all over again, but if I had only one thing to say to the House, it would be: let us just slow down. Let us consider this properly in the round, taking all the different issues together.
None the less, we do still need to tidy up what happened last week. I can see a lot of Conservative Members agreeing with that. I gently say to the ministerial team here that, if we want it, there is an opportunity for us tomorrow. We have two outstanding issues: one is the creation of the Committee, which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) does not want to serve on, even though he is meant to be the Chair. I certainly hope that he is better from his covid.

John Whittingdale: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: Secondly, of course, we all accept that Mr Paterson has left the House; he is no longer a Member. We cannot impose a sanction on him, as you said yourself, Mr Speaker, but, unfortunately, the House took a view on the report last week, which was basically to suspend it in mid-air. The motion, I suggest, would be a very simple one that we could consider tomorrow. It will be in all of our interests—the whole of the House —to get this sorted tomorrow. It would say that notwithstanding the practice of this House relating to questions already decided in the same Session, this House, first, rescinds the resolution and order of 3 November 2021 relating to the third report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797) and the appointment of a new Select Committee; secondly, approves the third report of the Committee on Standards; and, thirdly, notes that Mr Owen Paterson has been disqualified as a Member of this House. I think that would be in the best interests of the whole of the House, and then we could move forward.
One final point: we really struggled to create the ICGS and the independent expert panel. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire did a magnificent piece of work in trying to get cross-party support for all of that. We promised that the standards system would be independent, because that was the guarantor for the  staff who felt that they had been bullied or sexually harassed. We cannot do anything that undermines that. Independence, fairness and justice should be the bywords not just of the Standards Committee, but of the whole of the House.

Andy Carter: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Committee on Standards. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate.
I hope that, as a member of the Committee, I can contribute to this discussion with the benefit of knowing both the details of the specific case that we discussed last week and the wider issues about the rules that are enforced for MPs.
This debate today is not another case of parliamentarians arguing among themselves. This is about the integrity of this House, which is one reason why the Standards Committee has such an important role to play in ensuring that the rules are clear, that the processes are fair and that decisions are made in a way that make sense to those in this House and to those who elect us to serve here.
It is important that we recognise that the overwhelming majority of Members who serve in this House—in all parts of this House—are hard-working and will do their best to uphold the highest of standards. Indeed, Members of all parties have fallen foul of the rules, so it is important that all parties contribute to these debates.
I will come on to discuss how some of the current processes could be improved, but before that, following on from some of the comments made by the Chair of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), I would like to address a couple of matters raised last week when we debated the amendment, when I could not speak, and in some of the subsequent commentary that I have seen in the newspapers. I feel that there is some misunderstanding around the work of the Committee and how it reached the decisions that it did.
Having spent many years sitting in court as a magistrate, and in Crown courts listening to appeals, I can say that it is rare for anyone to agree with every decision that is made by a member of the judiciary. 1 try to apply the same approach to my role on the Standards Committee as I do as a judicial office holder—making decisions without fear or favour, affection or ill will, and treating everyone the same regardless of their position or party.
First, I read that the decision reached in relation to Mr Paterson lacked legal supervision. I can tell hon. and right hon. Members that, all through the hearings and when Committee members were discussing the specific case, Speaker’s Counsel was present and gave legal advice on a number of matters, including the application of human rights legislation. Some Members have commented that witnesses were not called to provide testimony. As Members will know, 17 witness statements were provided by Mr Paterson. I read them all, as I believe every member of the Committee did. Indeed, the Committee discussed numerous aspects included within them. However, I do not believe that the Committee would have gained any additional insight from hearing directly from those witnesses, and I do not believe that the Committee would have reached a different decision.

Bill Cash: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows of the six criteria of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which are the minimum requirements for the maintenance of natural justice in relation to the examination of witnesses. Without that and without the investigatory panel, does he not agree that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know what the outcome would be until such a panel is heard with a legal assessor, and with the legal assessor himself deciding whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with?

Andy Carter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will go on to discuss more about natural justice in a moment, so if I may, I will continue.
In no previous case that I have seen on this Committee have witnesses been called to give verbal evidence. The Committee was right to maintain a consistent approach in its process. Had we not, very quickly people would have been asking, “Why are you changing the rules?” There is also a route for questioning individuals such as witnesses in writing should the Committee feel that that is necessary, and we have done so recently.
Thirdly, I have heard some say that the commissioner is prosecutor, judge and jury, but I am afraid that that is not quite the case. The Standards Committee makes the final determination on all of the evidence and only the Committee decides on the sanction—the commissioner makes no decision on the sanction. Should the Committee feel that, on balance, the commissioner has not satisfactorily made the case that a Member has breached the code, as was recently the case with my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Committee can reject the commissioner’s findings.
In early 2020, the House charged the Standards Committee with conducting a review of the code of conduct and how the code should be upheld through sanctions. Without going into the detail of the Committee’s findings—because they are not yet ready to be published—I can tell the House that we have held numerous evidence sessions, including with the Leader of the House and with the Chief Whips from both the Government and the Opposition. We have also received evidence from similar bodies who regulate professions, and from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and senior members of the judiciary. All of that is feeding into our report, which will be made public later this year.
I would, though, like to share one or two of my personal views on a number of issues that have been raised. Having served on the Committee for some time now, I have concerns that the current set of rules and codes is complicated, although, I am afraid, not the system related to paid advocacy—that is very straightforward. As the Chair of the Standards Committee has just mentioned, a number of different bodies are involved in giving advice and investigating breaches. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority makes decisions on spending and can take action if claims are made incorrectly. The independent expert panel deals with bullying and harassment. Advice on using the portcullis and letterheads comes from the House authorities. The registrar gives advice on what can and should be recorded. The Standards Committee deals with some sanctions, but not others. It is confusing. I am a Member of the Standards Committee and I get confused. I touched earlier on the role of the commissioner as investigator and adviser. I do think that the system would benefit from some changes to  separate those roles, with the commissioner investigating and legal counsel advising, so that we are absolutely certain that we are following the right legal roles.
I worry that good behaviour and time served in this House may work against someone if they are found to have breached the rules. We need to look carefully at that. I also worry that Members are prevented from speaking to anyone about cases raised against them. Indeed, they are specifically warned not to discuss their cases. Now, there is value in not having a war in the press, but it does not stop reporting. Being able to discuss cases would help to ensure that MPs are given the right support that they may need, particularly when dealing with vexatious claims.
Finally, I worry that Members do not recognise the value that lay members bring to the current Standards Committee. Those seven individuals provide a vital check on the Committee. The mix of both elected members and lay members with no political involvement ensures very robust challenge. The current mix of members brings genuine expertise, and I welcome their involvement and input.
I do believe that there is a need to look at the appeals process in order to check that process is being followed and that a Member has had a fair hearing, and that could be achieved within the current standards system, with some small changes to Standing Orders.

Jamie Stone: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. His point about the involvement of the laity seems to me, as a former justice of the peace, to be very important. When it comes to the workings of the justices, the fact that the general public see an ordinary person like them involved gives them more faith in the judicial process. However, if we go down the wrong road—where the Committee on which he serves does not protect the reputation of Members—the faith of the public in those Members decreases, the turnout in elections drops because they will say, “It is simply not worth it”—and that is bad for democracy.

Andy Carter: I absolutely agree. This is about the integrity of this House and preserving democracy; it is really important.
As Members of Parliament, we are expected to uphold the values, principles and rules of the code of conduct that we all sign up to and that we should all act on, in accordance with the public trust that is placed in us. There will be times when it is right to make changes to the code and to update the Standing Orders. We should do so as one House, once we have considered all the options, to ensure that we protect the democracy and reputation of all who serve in this House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: There are quite a lot of Members who wish to speak and we have an hour and seven minutes remaining. Jess Phillips is going to set a great example.

Jess Phillips: I shall start with an apology to you, Mr Speaker. As I have already mentioned to you, I have to leave the debate straight after my comments because I am due in Westminster Hall to talk about people spiking drinks, which I am  sure concerns the whole House. After I have made that apology—I am aware that this might sound slightly backward—let me say that I tell my children when they apologise that “sorry” is just a word, and changing our behaviour is the way that we prove that we are sorry. I ask my children not to say sorry to me very often, although they are called on to do it quite a lot; I wish to see changed behaviour.
It is an absolute pleasure, actually, to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). He is not a Member who I have had much interaction with, but I can see that he is going to be an interesting and independent voice on the issue of standards in this House. He might not recognise some of the fanfare that we have had today, because there are normally only about 10 or 15 people in debates about how we are going to look at the code of conduct, but this one seems to have piqued considerably more interest.
There are changes that might need to be made; I do not think that the system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. On appeals, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) was insistent about the ICGS and how it works. I hope that Members are aware that such a system means that both parties can appeal a decision, so if that system were in place and on one occasion it went the way of a Member, that would mean that the complainant, who may very well be vexatious, could keep on appealing. A system like that of the ICGS is not necessarily a perfect one.

Alberto Costa: The point is that the former member of the judiciary, Sir Stephen Irwin, has created a set of appeal rules that are very clear in outlining when a complainant or an MP can appeal from the sub-panel to his own panel, and they are broadly the same grounds that we might use in judicial review, where the matter is either being dealt with improperly or unlawfully, or it is manifestly unreasonable.

Jess Phillips: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman defending judicial review. I absolutely love a bit of judicial review. I have taken the Government to court on a number of occasions—for example, when they sort of stopped victims of domestic violence being able to move across councils. I have always welcomed a judicial review.
I very much welcome the considerable efforts that people here are now going to make, as they advocate for themselves, to advocate for the kind of people in my constituency who have no legal representation in any way, whether as domestic violence victims in the family court, or in employment tribunals. I am also interested to hear that Members really want us to have employment rights in this place. I remember when disabled Members in this building were saying that it would be against the Equality Act 2010 for them to come in during covid, and we were told that the Equality Act does not apply to us because we are not employees. It is an interesting turn of events that we have seen in the last few days.
I care deeply about the standards in this building, not because I am actually that interested in Standing Orders—I know that some hon. Gentlemen here love them, but I am not all that bothered by getting bogged down in the numbers, and this and that—but because I am interested in politics mattering to people in this country and those people feeling they can change it. If I could thank the Ministers on the Treasury Bench for anything, it would  be that this week the people in our country felt they could change something that they did not like, when the Government had to undo their deeply unpopular decision.
The more that we degrade this place—for some of us, that is considerably more dangerous than it is for others. For some of us, it every day screams in our faces that democracy has been undermined. It is dangerous if we do not get the standards in this place right and if we do not do it together collegiately, through the proper process, which has, up until last week, largely been my experience. It is a shame that on this occasion, that was not the case.
I have to go and talk about other things in another part of the House, but I will finish by mentioning one more issue. On the point about there being one rule for the people outside this building and different rules for the people inside this building, it has been phenomenal for me this week to see the different contracts that organisations such as Randox have been given without a tender process. I speak as somebody who has spent hours and hours of my time working in charities, filling in tender process after tender process for amounts of money like £25,000 for a children’s sexual exploitation service that would last for a whole year. I had to include information on what sort of locks were going to be on the doors in the office and how we would lock the filing cabinets.
Hour by hour is accounted for. I have worked on Home Office contracts where the staffing hour is literally given out in 15-minute blocks, and I am monitored on that and it is accounted for—and I find that what I needed was hundreds of thousands of pounds to pay somebody in here to make that a little bit simpler. We can blame covid all we like, but I sat and filled in the Government paperwork for grants for organisations that were offering refuge accommodation during the covid-19 pandemic, and there were pages and pages where they had to reply to multiple different organisations and Departments. I helped lots of charities to do it and I did not charge anyone a single bean.
I will finish by saying that there is one rule for the people in our country, and seemingly another for enormous, friendly companies who are willing to pay the people in here.

Mark Fletcher: I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate and very much welcome it. I, too, am a member of the Standards Committee. Usually, by precedent, we do not comment on the cases that we deal with: we put everything into our report and allow the report to speak for itself. However, last week left us in slightly unusual circumstances where we felt the need to try to clarify some things around our work, our processes and our motivations.
I have served on the Committee since February of last year. It is usually senior Members of the House who serve on the Committee, but I have had the great privilege of doing so. With respect to the Chairman of the Committee, it is, in many ways, a horrible Committee to sit on, because there is a huge amount of work to do and very little link back to the constituency, and we sit judgment on colleagues, some of whom we have tremendous respect for. I joined the Committee at a time when there was great change within the processes around the ICGS and the new things that we were creating, but also  questions around the rules that we were upholding, oversight of the commissioner, and the processes that we were trying to apply as a Committee. Yet I joined up willingly, because perhaps the greatest threat to our democracy is when people outside this building point to us all and say, “They are all the same—they are all on the take.” It is true that anyone in this House can make a mistake, but the vast majority of colleagues in all parts of the House are desperate to stay within the rules and are well-intentioned. But for those who do break the rules, the punishment must be fitting. I had no problem voting for the report that was discussed last week; I would do the same again today.
I have only three points that I wish to place on the record. The first is around process. Many hon. and right hon. Members have said that the process of standards cases needs improving. I agree. I think every member of the Standards Committee would say they agreed. They would probably disagree over which parts of the process should be improved, but nevertheless there is a commitment among all members of the Committee to try to improve the process and ensure that it is as good as possible. The process under which we currently operate was agreed before I became a Member of this House. The Committee had been set the homework of trying to uphold the existing process and make a success of it. If the assignment is now to come up with a different and improved process, I am sure we will undertake that as happily as possible. I do, however, caution that I think that Mr Paterson would have been found to have broken the rules under any process that we create, and we should not kid ourselves on that front. I appreciate that he has many friends in this House, and the tragic events that have impacted him and his family deserve all our sympathy, but this is a separate point to his conduct. Equally, I caution some colleagues on their desire to rush towards a pseudo-legal adversarial process to replace the current system: be careful what you wish for. I think that path will lead to more antagonistic cases and, as the Chairman of the Committee set out, a greater role for external counsel, which I fear will create inequality among Members in terms of those who have particular private wealth, and potentially create a significant loss of parliamentary privilege.
Secondly, it has been suggested by some senior colleagues on the Conservative Back Benches that as I have only been here for two years, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I, and we, do not know how this place really works. I say with the greatest of respect to those colleagues that I think that two years here is more than enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Many senior colleagues have made comments and suggestions regarding the Committee’s work. If any of those colleagues wish to replace me on the Committee tomorrow, I will happily stand down.
Thirdly, I wish to strongly defend the lay members of the Standards Committee. I know that very few Members have interacted with them or had the experience of sitting on a Committee with lay members. Those I have served with on the Standards Committee are conscientious, hard-working and fair. I have learnt a tremendous amount from them, and I hope that they would say the same in return.

Kevin Brennan: I have been a Member of the House for 20 years, and the maturity and the balance of the speech that the hon. Gentleman is giving makes we want to intervene on him to thank him for serving as a member of the Committee, because I can certainly say that it is something that I have never been willing to do. I thank him, the Chair and other members of the Committee for the service that they give to this House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome that, but we do need to push on.

Mark Fletcher: If ever an intervention killed a career, Mr Speaker!
It is the untold story of last week’s situation that absolutely none of the points raised by Mr Paterson and his various supporters were not discussed by the Committee at length. The report that was produced contained many of the responses and corrections. Everyone is entitled to disagree with what the Committee decided, but it is desperately unfair to suggest that it did anything other than forensically examine all the evidence presented to it and reach the appropriate decision. The Committee so often has diverse starting points, but we work incredibly hard to reach a consensus, which I think is the very definition of fairness for Members whose cases appear in front of us. If we change the process to remove the lay members, our standards system will be all the poorer for their loss.
It was only a matter of weeks ago that this House was united in grief for the loss of a great colleague. That was us at our very best. Today’s debate, with the mistakes that have been made, the opportunism of some Opposition Members—I hate to point it out—and the rush to create a new system without full consideration is us at our very worst. I am a proud member of the 2019 intake that came to this House determined to deliver a better politics for my constituents. I want a free and fair standards process that allows me to look my constituents in the eye and say, “No, we are not all the same.” Improvements can be made, but rushing things through risks creating a bigger mess. Let cooler heads prevail. Our duties as Members of this House are wide ranging. We represent our constituents, we create laws, we hold the Government to account, and we work to further many issues, but we are also role models held to high standards. When we fall short of those standards, as any Member can do, we should remember our duties to this House, to our colleagues and to our democratic system.

Paula Barker: I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate.
It saddens me that we find ourselves here today having to debate the consequences of the decision that the majority of those on the Government Benches took last week regarding the former Member for North Shropshire. Such a debate should be unnecessary, but sadly, due to the actions of last week, the consequences beyond this place are very clear: further erosion of public trust in our politics and its representatives, a real anger that it is one rule for the hard-working majority and another for politicians, and a growing sense of apathy that weakens our democracy and our institutions and makes us all poorer.
I have since wondered what my own constituents would think—indeed, do think, because many have contacted me—such as those facing fire and rehire, those struggling to make ends meet on universal credit, and those waiting on access to decent social care. The adage that yesterday’s news will be today’s chip paper will not hold true. So long as this Prime Minister remains in place, I fear that we will return to this dark place again and again. The substantial majority that the Government won at the last general election does not make them beyond reproach, it does not make the Prime Minister beyond reproach, and it does not make any hon. or right hon. Member in this place beyond reproach. The younger, newer intake on the Government Benches probably understand that. Like me, they probably thought they had entered a 1990s-time warp last week. When it came to the crunch, the old boys’ network reigned supreme. Frankly, I am fed up with this place lurching from one scandal to another. So too are my constituents, who expect better. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.
In my opinion, we should prioritise two things, along with those outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. First, we should make corruption in public office a criminal offence that applies to any MP who falls short of the standards expected of them. Secondly, we should ban any MP from having a second job, unless that is required to maintain professional accreditations.
From where I come from and for the people I represent, an MP’s salary is more than enough to live on and, frankly, it is a full-time job if we are doing it properly. If the salary is not enough for the privileged class of MPs such as the likes of the former Member for North Shropshire—on any of the Benches but particularly the Government Benches—then to quote Lord Tebbit, “Get on your bike,” find another job and leave, because no one is forcing you to stay. If we do not all act, I fear that public hostility towards all Members will only get worse. After all, it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. In the public’s eyes, everyone in this place is in the barrel.

Mark Harper: May I commend you, Mr Speaker, for the statement you made before this debate started? I agreed with every word. I also commend the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing the debate.
Usually I start by saying, “It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate…”, but on this occasion, it is not, really. I regret that we are here today, and it is most unfortunate. Let me say a brief word about the specific case of Mr Owen Paterson. I read the Standards Committee report in full and I listened to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) last week. The report was clear and unambiguous, and I fully support what he said. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench can resolve the matter tomorrow in the way that he set out. That would be helpful for the reputation of the House and for Mr Paterson to put this matter to bed, rather than its remaining an issue of continuing controversy. I also note speculation in the press about a peerage for Mr Paterson, and I hope Ministers can rule that out. That would be a mistake and most regrettable.
On the process, I commend the members of the Committee who have spoken. They spoke very well. A lay member of the Committee, Tammy Banks, did an interview at the weekend in some detail. If it were listened to by members of the public, it would reassure them that there is a robust and independent process to hold Members of this House to a high standard. I thank the commissioner and the Committee—the Members of the House who are members and the lay members—for the work they do, generally un-thanked and unappreciated, but which I think is very important.
Personally, I think that the process that the Committee follows is pretty fair. I am sure there could be improvements, and I look forward to the Committee’s investigation into the code of conduct and any suggestions it may have. I hope those can be taken forward in a cross-party way.
As a former Government Chief Whip, I may be permitted, I hope, a couple of points about whipping. The decision we took last week was on a House matter, and in my view House business should not be whipped—it should be a free vote. I made that position clear privately. It is how I conducted myself in the vote last week. I voted against the amendment because I thought it important to uphold the standards of this House for everyone in it.
My second point on whipping is that politics is a team game; it is essential to work with one’s colleagues to deliver anything. If the team captain is to expect loyalty and Back Benchers and Ministers to listen to the direction of the team captain, they deserve decisions that are well thought through and soundly based. If on occasion, as on this occasion—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set it out very well, and he was a very valued member of my Whips Office, and he did apologise on behalf of the Government—the team captain gets it wrong, he should come and apologise to the public and to this House. That is the right thing to do to demonstrate leadership.
Finally, it is important, when this House debates standards in public life, that every Member remembers that we are judged on the decisions we make. I was elected in 2005, so I was in this House when we had to live through the expenses scandal, which enveloped Members on both sides. Despite the fact that I was never caught up in that and had a completely clean bill of health, it is the only time in my 16 years as a Member of Parliament that when I was at a social function and someone asked me what I did, I was ashamed to say I am a Member of Parliament. I am not going to do anything or allow anyone to do anything that takes us back to those dark times. I will do everything I can to avoid us getting there. No one is going to stop me conducting myself in a way that keeps us free of that reputation-damaging era. We have to have high standards and improve them. That is what every Member of the House wants to achieve.

Marion Fellows: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. I have been a Member of the House for only six and a half years. I do not have an in-built affection for this place, its traditions or anything to do with it, but I do have an in-built sense of justice, fairness and how things should be done correctly.
It was an appalling day in the House last week and, unfortunately, I was acting Chief Whip of my party. I had to handle what was happening with the old boys’ network in this place and try to think on my feet—I do not think I acquitted myself terribly well. I do not want to go on about everything that has already been mentioned, but I have to say that one of my children was present in this House when the expenses scandal was on. I never thought I would be standing here speaking in any case, but certainly not about corruption, the old boys’ network and double dealing. I find it appalling.
What I have found even more appalling since last Wednesday is the attack on the commissioner for standards. It is absolutely egregious. Now, “egregious” was the word used of Owen Paterson, the former MP, because of what he did. It pains me that I am seen as a Member of this place when people think it is right to ride roughshod over the rules, to take part in bringing this place into disrepute and then to have their Government say, “Right, everybody on our Benches, vote for a new commission that we will make up and run.” That is not how any Parliament should be run. I find the Leader of the House to be a polite, affable gentleman, but I think he is squirming in his place today. He brought forward the motion last week, and he should be standing answering questions about why he did that and why it was in such ridiculous terms.
I said at the start I have been here only six and a half years. I do not want to be here much longer; I want to move to an independent Scotland. This kind of behaviour is not allowed in the Scottish Parliament. I do not want—[Interruption.] I do not want people in Scotland to think that because I am a Member of this Parliament, I would back such things.

Chris Bryant: To be fair, it is not allowed here either.

Marion Fellows: No.

Owen Thompson: My hon. Friend clearly made quite a comment. Does she agree that it would bring many things forward if this place came into line with the Scottish Parliament where that sort of behaviour is a criminal offence?

Marion Fellows: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend; yes, it would.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly pointed out that that is not allowed here. What would not be allowed and would not happen in an independent Scotland are the kind of shenanigans that took place last week to protect one of the Government’s own and increase the old boys’ network, which they then sent a junior Minister to defend.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate, which has been a necessary corrective to what happened last week.
I will talk about friendship, which is a key part of this place. We spend so much time together here, and it would be intolerable if everything were about politics. Our friendships are vital for mutual support and relaxation,  and to remind us what truly matters in life. Although we refer to Members on our own sides of the Chamber as our hon. Friends, many friendships are forged across the Chamber. I will come back to that later.
Loyalty to one’s friends in times of great difficulty is among the most admirable of traits, but I fear that it was an overzealous application of that principle that helped to lead the House to its extremely unfortunate decision last Wednesday. Mr Paterson’s friends understandably wished to stand by him and protect him, especially given the tragedy that had struck his family—of course, our sympathies are still with him. As he is no longer in this place, I do not wish to dwell too long on the findings of the report from the Committee on Standards, but I share the hope expressed by its Chair that we will get a say on that report.
I studied the report carefully, both its conclusions and source material, particularly Mr Paterson’s emails contained in it. In the light of its contents, and particularly what has happened since last Wednesday, I gently wonder whether his friends took the wisest course of action in trying to protect him. Sometimes, friendship means counselling somebody out of a fixed position, rather than reinforcing it. There is kindness in giving friends advice that they may not want, but need, to hear.
I am proud to be part of the 2019 Conservative intake of MPs, often called “the 109”, and I have made many new and firm friendships within that group since I arrived in this place. There is nothing like a shared experience to bond people together, and we have all been through quite the experience in the last two years. Many of my friends within that group have endured a miserable time since last Wednesday’s vote. Many wish that they had chosen to vote differently and are beating themselves up about it. I say to them that loyalty to one’s party is also an admirable trait—this place, indeed our entire political system, could not function without that—but the reality is that they should not have been put in such an invidious position.
The 109 subsequently acquired an additional member, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). I hope that she will not mind me quoting her WhatsApp message to our group, given that it subsequently leaked to the press:
“This was a colossal misjudgement, it should not have been whipped. You should have been allowed to vote with your conscience on this.”
I could not agree more and I hope that Treasury Ministers are listening. Let us return to the convention that House business is not whipped. I praise her courage in voting against the motion last Wednesday, having only been in this place for six months. I am proud to call her my friend.
I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who are also from the 2019 intake. They sit on the Committee for Standards and gave splendid speeches earlier. They have handled themselves with the utmost dignity and integrity in the face of some totally unacceptable briefings, and I am proud to call them my friends as well.
I thank friends from both sides of the House who took the time to check on me last Wednesday. Breaking the Whip is not straightforward: it churned me up beforehand and left me a little shellshocked afterwards —perhaps it will be easier next time. I was deeply  touched by the number of Members—friends—who stopped to simply ask whether I was all right. I see some of them here today, but there were many more besides, including some outside this Chamber.
Friendship, especially cross party, is needed more than ever in this place, particularly in the light of the terrible murder of our colleague Sir David Amess. I recognise that cross-party trust on standards was badly broken last Wednesday, but I hope for all our sakes that the damage can be repaired as soon as possible.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The catalyst for today’s debate is the case of the former MP for North Shropshire, but it is not just about that. It is about the relevance of ethics to how the Government conduct the duty of governance. It is about cash for contracts, cash for honours, allegations of bullying by Ministers being swept under the carpet, and a former Prime Minister privately texting Ministers to further his financial interests.
In 2007, the then Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, now leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, tabled a private Member’s Bill to make lying in politics illegal by making it an offence to knowingly mislead the public. His proposal was an attempt to restore faith in an age on the cusp of fake news, fake views and fake figures. We manipulate the truth at our peril. Now more than ever, such radical ideas are needed.
Last week, Conservative MPs made much of the argument that MPs should be treated like other employees. I put it to them that if a doctor wilfully misleads a patient, if a company wilfully misleads its customers or if a teacher wilfully misleads a pupil, there are consequences enshrined in law. Yet although it shows blatant disrespect to Parliament, and more importantly to our constituents, a Minister can break the ministerial code, give contracts worth billions of pounds to friends and mislead the House without consequences.
Faith in Westminster politics is at an all-time low thanks to this Government. Major reforms are needed to regain trust. We need to have independent oversight of the ministerial code; to ban MPs from having second jobs, except for public service for which we are paid; to force Ministers to correct the record after giving misleading information in the Chamber; and to scrap the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper Chamber. In the meantime, Adam Price and I are writing to the Metropolitan police to ask it to conduct an investigation to determine whether offences have been committed by the Conservative party under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.
If the system cannot be reformed to stop corruption, perhaps the system is the problem. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke very well, fluently and capably about the process.
At the end of such a debate, we tend to get drawn into a conversation among ourselves and forget how it appears to people outside. The people of Wales will have their representation here reduced from 40 to 32 Members; they see a Government with a robust majority able to ride roughshod over perfectly normal, accepted ethical standards; and they will ask whether this is the system that serves them best or whether they could do it better themselves.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to what the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the former Government Chief Whip, said earlier, I understand that the Prime Minister arrived back in London, to King’s Cross, at 5 pm. Would it be in order for him to come to the House before the end of the debate or, if that is not possible, to make a statement to the House to personally apologise as the former Chief Whip advised he should?

Lindsay Hoyle: To be quite honest, that is not a point of order.

David Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The former Member for North Shropshire, the right hon. Owen Paterson, served his constituency for 24 years and held some of the highest offices in Government. By any standards, what happened to him is a tragedy: he lost his career but, much worse, he lost his wife in the most distressing circumstances. On a human level, there cannot be a Member of this House who does not feel at least some degree of sympathy for him.
I have heard the proposal of the Chair of the Committee on Standards on how to deal with Mr Paterson’s case, but in reality, the specific issue of his personal conduct is closed as a consequence of his resignation last week. However, his case has highlighted issues that deserve the continued attention of this House. In retrospect, everyone agrees that it was wrong of the Government to conflate the specific issue of Owen Paterson’s conduct with the important wider issue of the regulation and enforcement of standards in this House, and I was glad to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster issuing what I thought was a very full apology for that.
What the case has thrown into focus are questions  of natural justice that are not adequately addressed  in Standing Orders Nos. 149 and 150. For example, Mr Paterson wanted to call no fewer than 17 witnesses to give evidence in support of his case, and he was not afforded the opportunity to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) has expressed his concerns on the issue of natural justice. For my own part, I find it hard to see how the denial of a right to call witnesses and for those witnesses to be examined and cross-examined—a right that is taken for granted in civil and criminal proceedings in this country—can be compatible with natural justice.

Chris Bryant: I do want to correct this point. We did hear the witnesses in writing. Their witness statements are all available online. We considered the matter. As happens in every single court in the land, we considered the matter, as judges would and as many tribunals would.
I would just say to the right hon. Member that he voted for a motion that, I am afraid, did not close the matter on Mr Paterson. It left it completely and utterly open—deliberately so—and, indeed, Mr Paterson still asserts that he is innocent and that, if he were a Member, he would do the whole thing all over again, so I am afraid we will have to tidy this up.

David Jones: I hear what the Chairman of the Committee has to say, but, frankly, it is one thing to read written evidence, and it is another thing for that evidence to be tested in examination and cross-examination, and that was not allowed.
Furthermore, there is no provision for an independent appeals process under Standing Order No 150. I do not believe that that can be right either. Provision should be made for a proper appeals procedure under the Standing Order No. 150 process, as indeed there is under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, where an appeal panel is chaired by a High Court judge.
There should also be greater legal input into the entire process. Standing Order No. 150 does provide for the establishment of an investigatory panel, with a legally qualified assessor and counsel, but only at the behest of either the commissioner herself or the Committee. That, of course, was not done in Mr Paterson’s case. Indeed, ever since the procedure was first put in place, no such panel has ever been established. That is a matter of regret because the legal assessor has a duty under Standing Order No. 150(10) to
“report to the Committee…his opinion as to the extent to which its proceedings have been consistent with the principles of natural justice”.
That is the only occasion in which the words “natural justice” appear anywhere in Standing Orders Nos. 149 and 150, which, I suggest, is also a matter that needs to be rectified.
In the debate last week, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I am delighted to see in his place, made the important point that, while he was sympathetic to the proposition that the rules do need reform, this could only be done with consensus. I believe that Mr Paterson’s case, despite its wholly regrettable outcome and, frankly, the way it was handled last week, has highlighted deficiencies in the process that do need to be addressed by the House. I very much hope that, now that the sting caused by the conflation of the individual case with the wider issue of the need for reform has been removed, the House can proceed on the basis of consensus and seek to make improvements to a system that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Paterson case, is so clearly in need of reform.

Kim Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this very important debate.
Never in my short time in Parliament have I witnessed such naked corruption as I did last week in the botched attempt by the Tories to save their mate from being held to account for his serious misconduct. That the Prime Minister has not even showed up today shows once again that he thinks he can duck the consequences of his actions, particularly as we have just found out that he is sitting down the road having a cuppa. He is making an absolute mockery of his office and of our democracy.
Three Conservative Members who are currently under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards voted in favour of ripping up the rules. We have heard reports that the Prime Minister threatened his MPs with losing funding for their constituencies if they did not back his plans on Wednesday. Blackmail to cover up corruption—what an utter disgrace! We should call it what it is: the Government’s attempt to rewrite the rules was unashamedly corrupt. That it was done in an attempt to cover up the kind of corruption we have  seen throughout this pandemic tells us everything we need to know about the depth of contempt the Tories have for the constituents and the country they are supposed to serve.
The Member in question was found guilty of breaking cash-for-access rules after he received £100,000 from two firms that then went on to win hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of covid contracts, despite evidence they were not up to the job. How many more crony contracts have this Government allocated? Over the last year, we have seen the previous Health Secretary agree a covid test contract with his pub landlord via WhatsApp; we have seen revelations that a fifth of UK covid contracts raised red flags for corruption; and £2.1 billion for 27 PPE or testing contracts was paid by the taxpayer to firms with connections to the Tory party. Enough is enough.
Eye-watering amounts of public money have been funnelled into the pockets of Tory donors and their rich mates under the guise of the pandemic, while our public services have been systematically defunded for over a decade. It is beyond parody that this Government are trying to reposition themselves as the party of public services when that is the reality. We need a full and transparent investigation into how these crony contracts were awarded and their outcomes.
Not only do the Tories think it is okay for MPs to take on lucrative second jobs, which clearly creates conflicts of interest between the constituents they serve and their paymasters in big business who buy influence through the back door, but—

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Member give way?

Kim Johnson: No, thank you. I will not give way. I am going to carry on.
The Tories also clearly think it is okay to give a green light to cash for access, a practice that places the interests of MPs squarely with those of the highest bidder and obliterates their obligations towards those they were elected to serve. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to take this opportunity, right here and now, to commit to going back to the Government and appealing to them to take action to ban second jobs for MPs, unless they need to retain professional recognition.

Jeremy Wright: I should start by declaring my interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The only other Member of this House who is also a member of that committee, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), is not able to speak in this debate, but having spoken to her, I know she would agree with the criticisms I am about to make.
The amendment passed last week that we have been discussing sought to do a number of things that were wholly wrong. It sought to link the determination of an individual case to proposals for reform of our disciplinary system more broadly. It sought to establish a Committee of the House that did not and would not have cross-party support to consider reforms that could succeed only with cross-party support. It sought to do all that by whipping Government Back Benchers on House business that should not have been whipped at all, with some unfair and gratuitous attacks on the competence and  integrity of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who, as you pointed out, Mr Speaker, has no right of reply.
For all those reasons, I could not support that amendment, but it seems to me that this debate should not focus on rehashing last week, but instead consider what we do now. On that, I speak for myself, not for my Committee or for any member of it. For all that some objectives of the amendment were illegitimate, not all of them were illegitimate. For example, I do think it is right to consider a clear and effective appeal mechanism for those initially found to have committed misconduct.
One frustrating aspect of last week is that the noise created by the rest of the amendment has made serious conversations about reform in that respect harder. I also think that the understandable public reaction to the events of last week means that we will have to think more extensively about reform to our disciplinary processes. Perhaps we should do that anyway.

Bill Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Jeremy Wright: Briefly.

Bill Cash: I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend, who was the Attorney General, the simple question that I put to the Leader of the Opposition: if the investigatory panel could have been set up, but was not set up, it was impossible for the rules of natural justice, as applied by Standing Order 150, to be brought into effect. Does he accept that that puts the Member in question at a severe disadvantage?

Jeremy Wright: I regret that I do not think there is a simple answer to that question, but I disagree that the problem is a breach of the rules of natural justice. I do not think that is our issue. I will come on to what I think the issue is, but I do not think it is that. My view is that last week reminded the public that they do not trust this House to discipline its own Members. I say “reminded” because not only have we been sent that message before, but we have acted on it before. The expenses scandal led to an independent body to determine our expenses claims, and only last year, as others have pointed out, we agreed an independent expert panel to determine claims of bullying and harassment. We now need to follow through on the logic for independent determination of other forms of serious misconduct.
Although I accept as a matter of democratic principle that it is necessary for Members of Parliament to authorise a sanction involving suspension or expulsion from this House, it does not follow from that that it is either necessary or desirable for Members of Parliament to judge the merits of disciplinary proceedings against other Members of Parliament. If we needed a demonstration of how that can cause problems and undermine confidence in our rules, we surely had it last week. We must have reform, but reform must be undertaken with a clear head and in a balanced way.
There is a strong case for a clear appeal procedure. I have heard the argument, made particularly forcefully and well by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), that consideration of a case by the Committee on Standards is, in effect, an appeal from the commissioner. However, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman—I generally agree with what he says—I do not think that is  quite right. An appeal is a means of challenging a decision. The commissioner makes a recommendation, not a decision. The decision is made by the Committee on Standards, and it is that decision that would be subject to any appeal that we added to the current architecture. Again with great respect to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee—I think he and they do a good job—we will have to face the need for a greater independent element in deciding cases of serious alleged misconduct by other Members of the House.
To return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I do not entirely go along with the view set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) that what we have is a fundamental breach of the rules of natural justice. That does not appear to be what is happening. Instead, we have a failure to meet the test of public confidence. That is a different test, but one we must take seriously. As a result of that—again, I take the points by the Chair of the Committee on Standards that we are engaged in a process of reform, and about the pace of such reform—we must expect and establish due process, and these cases should be largely determined independently of us. If we do not do that, I fear confidence in us will continue to fall, with consequences for Parliament and the acceptance of the laws we pass. The pandemic has shown us how much that can matter. The lesson of last week is not to back away from reform of our disciplinary process; it is rather that we have to get on with it and go further in it, and do so in a wholly different way to the way we approached it last week.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting the application for today’s debate from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is, unfortunately, very timely and necessary, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it, and on the manner in which she introduced it.
I listened to your statement before the debate, Mr Speaker, when you spoke about the best traditions of the House, and my mind went back to a conversation that I had with a colleague not long after I was elected to this House. It was basically to the effect that the day anybody found me standing here making a speech about the best traditions of the House, they could take me out and shoot me because my useful life would be over at that point. The House will therefore appreciate, I hope, that I have picked my words and what I am about to say with extreme caution.
I do not think that the convention of not whipping House business is the best tradition of the House, but it is certainly a very important one. I do not know whose decision it was to whip the motion and amendment last week, but it was a seriously colossal error of judgment. They have damaged the authority of the Prime Minister, they have damaged the credibility of the Leader of the House, and they have seriously undermined the ability of the Government Whips Office to do the job with which it is charged. Some might say that that is a silver lining, but the cloud, which is the damage to Parliament as a whole, is otherwise impenetrably dark.
As others have said, we now need to move on and look at what we do to go ahead. I take the point of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and  Southam (Jeremy Wright) that we need to consider questions of process. I remain to be convinced about the need for an appeal, but given that this is a committee and not a court, and the process is not informed by legal practitioners, I see the argument for there being a fresh pair of eyes on such matters. If, however, all we do in the process about which the Leader of the House was speaking last week is tinker around with a few procedural matters, we might as well not bother. That is simply not equal to the task before us of restoring public confidence in the House’s ability to deal with its own standards and discipline.
On those right hon. and hon. Members who have outside interests or second incomes, I do not favour an outright ban on second jobs, as that would have the unintended consequence of making more people see this as an occupation from which there would never be any departure. The idea that people can come here for a term or two and then return to whatever profession or occupation they had beforehand is good and sensible, but this weekend I saw reports about the time given by some right hon. and hon. Members, and the money they received in return, which I think is simple indefensible. As we look to what we do in future, we must consider that, and at very least we must have a cap on such matters.
Let me return to the point that I made in my intervention on the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government are approaching this as a good faith exercise, we should hear a commitment from the Treasury Bench that not only will there be no repetition of whipping House business, but that when any proposals are brought forward they will give us a cast-iron guarantee that Members will not be whipped. When you are in a hole, stop digging. The Government look as if they have stopped digging, but I still get the sense that somehow they cast rather envious and wistful glances in the direction of the shovel.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before I bring in Sir William Cash, I remind the House that I have to bring in Wendy Chamberlain at four minutes past 7.

Bill Cash: I have still not had an answer to the question I asked at the beginning of the debate, which is at the heart of this issue: why did the Committee not convene—it had the power to do so—and require the commissioner to hold an investigative panel? No answer is given to that. It is no good people saying, “Oh, it doesn’t matter”, because only by having the rules of natural justice applied, as set out in that part of the Standing Orders, is it possible to achieve the examination of witnesses and the fairness and criteria of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.

Kevin Hollinrake: Someone did give my hon. Friend an answer to that. It was the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said that the facts were not in dispute, which is one of the conditions of setting up such a panel.

Bill Cash: That is a very interesting response, because it still does not answer the question. The reality is—[Interruption.] No, with great respect, if we look at appendix 2 of the Committee’s report, there were 17 witness  statements on Mr Paterson’s behalf set out in rigorous detail. In relation to milk and food safety, there was witness evidence from the chief vet, National Milk Laboratories and the former chair of the Food Standards Agency. That confirmed that within the framework of exemptions for Members’ actions in the public interest, the former Member’s actions made milk safer. On the question of the contamination of a ham product, Professor Chris Elliott, in unchallenged evidence, made it clear that what the former Member revealed was the worst case that that professor had seen in 35 years. On both matters, those witnesses’ genuinely expert opinions were not followed in establishing the facts and in justification of the former Member’s defence.
On the question of natural justice and of witness statements and evidence, it has been established over and again in the courts that every court or tribunal is obliged to accept and follow unchallenged witness evidence.

Paula Barker: Will the hon. Member give way?

Bill Cash: No, I do not have time and we need to move on.
It is established in the recent Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme that a judge must be—and now will be, as far as I can judge—embedded in the procedure. An investigatory panel would be set up only infrequently, in cases of serious contested issues of fact that would not and could not be properly decided, and where the test of natural justice would be failed unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint.
That is made abundantly clear by the 2003 Committee report that I have already referred to—that Committee actually had eight Lib Dem and Labour members and only three Conservatives—so why a panel was never set up is a complete mystery. I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) say that he was a stickler for parliamentary procedure and due process in Parliament, so why did he decline to invoke the natural justice provisions, including examination of witnesses, under his own Standing Orders and, furthermore, consistent with the tests of fairness set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege?
Not only does every disciplinary committee in the land and other courts of justice and tribunals of every kind have rules of natural justice, but they have the right to appeal to the courts for judicial review. Members of Parliament cannot do so because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which includes things such as equality of arms, examination of witnesses and no delay. The reality is that in this instance—in this serious, contested case—there has been a failure of natural justice.
I do not know, and now nobody will ever know, what the investigatory panel would have discovered, because it was never invoked. It is most regrettable and a deep contribution to this tragedy—it is the centre of gravity of this problem—that the rules of natural justice, which are prescribed under the Standing Orders, were not applied. I stand by that, because it is evident on the face of the facts and the law.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank all Members for their presence today and all those who made contributions. Mr Speaker, I hope the tenor of the debate met your   expectations. Let me be clear that my intention in applying for the debate was simply what it says in the motion: to make an initial assessment of the consequences, far beyond the case of the former Member for North Shropshire. I was also compelled to act by the comments made in relation to the future of the current independent standards commissioner. I reiterate many of the comments made from throughout the House in support of her.
There are obviously a number of things already under way, including the review of the code of conduct that the Chair of the Standards Committee referred to, but the variety of standards and codes that have been raised in today’s debate suggests that they need to be aligned and streamlined. A number of issues have been raised, such as the work of the Committee, the commissioner and appeals, as well as issues outside the direct scope of the debate, such as cash for honours, the awarding of contracts and ministerial codes of conduct. All those things need to be looked at.
Last week’s vote had direct consequences that need to be addressed. I note the suggestion by the Chair of the Standards Committee, which seems to fit the suggestions of both the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I agree that we should take them forward.
Last week’s actions by the Government were a clear Executive overreach, and the Prime Minister has serious questions to answer. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster suggested that there was regret on the Government side and among ministerial colleagues, so I am disappointed that the Prime Minister is not here. However, when he has had the opportunity to apologise, such as in comments he made to the press today, he has chosen not to do so.
This is about trust. It is about trust in the Government that they will represent the House and not the Government in House business, and it is about trust in us as our constituents’ representatives. That trust, once eroded, is  very difficult to regain. Trust in our politics has been eroded in this past week. That includes all of us here in this House. On behalf of all our constituents, we must do all in our power to do our best to rebuild that trust as we take the next steps on standards.

John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: I was just going to put the Question, but yes—John Whittingdale.

John Whittingdale: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I of course understand why it was not possible for you to call me in the debate. However, I am left in something of a dilemma. As I understand it, the House has still passed a motion that establishes a new Committee, which I am supposed to chair. I agreed to chair it on the basis that it would be a cross-party Committee that would have support from both sides of the House. It appears that that is not possible. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) indicated, I would not wish to chair a Committee that had support from only one side, but I am not clear what is the status of the Committee, given that the motion that the House passed last week, as I understand it, is still in place.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am going to have to put the Question, but my quick answer is that we do need to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. No Committee can go forward—everyone has accepted that—but we need to draw a line under it, because at the moment there are too many questions that need to be answered. It is in the Government’s hands to resolve that, and I am sure that they will want to do it as quickly as possible, in which case this House can then begin to move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the consequences of the decision of the House of 3 November relating to Standards.

Environment Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 24 - Guidance on the OEP’s Enforcement Policy and Functions

Rebecca Pow: I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 31A and 31B and disagrees with Lords amendment 31C.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 33B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 45B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Government motion that this House insists on its amendments 75A and 75B, Lords amendment 75C, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 85D and 85E.

Rebecca Pow: I am delighted to be here in the House for what I really hope will be the final time discussing the Bill, even though I have quite relished my involvement with it. It has been quite a journey, but here we are with a Bill that does so much to set us on a sustainable trajectory for future challenges: tackling air, water, and waste pollution; improving our environment on a scale never before done; and stemming the tide of biodiversity loss and restoring nature. The sum of all these parts is groundbreaking.
I turn first to Lords amendments 31C and 75C, tabled by the noble Lord Krebs and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick in the other place, and amendments 31A, 31B, 75A and 75B, which the Government are insisting on today. I wish to put a number of points on the record in the knowledge that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in the future.
The office for environmental protection is and must be an independent body capable of holding public authorities to account for their environmental responsibilities, including through the use of its enforcement functions. That is why the Government have given the OEP a remit and powers of unprecedented breadth in the Bill. For the OEP to work effectively, it must act strategically and take action only when there is an environmental and public interest in doing so. On that point, everyone is agreed.
As the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for the OEP’s performance and use of public funds, the Government consider that the accountability power in clause 24 is necessary to ensure that the body continues to use public resources effectively to achieve the greatest public good. However, I must be clear that the content of guidance is limited to the areas of the OEP’s enforcement policy listed in clause 22(6). It cannot be used to direct the OEP as to the content of any report it might produce or any advice to the Government. Indeed, it  cannot be used as a power of direction at all. It would also be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on specific matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, given that there would be a conflict of interest. I do not want to be disingenuous: the OEP would be expected to have regard to any guidance issued, but it will retain the ability and discretion to make its own decisions, and will not be bound to act in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Rebecca Pow: I am going to rattle on. We have one hour only, but I will respond in my closing speech as much as I can to any issues that arise.
Many in this place and the other place have previously raised concerns that the Secretary of State might be able to use guidance to preclude the OEP from investigating a broad category of individual cases or subject areas, such as a nuclear power station. I must say, unequivocally, that it is our view that the power could not lawfully be used in that way. Any guidance issued must be consistent with the duty in paragraph 17 of schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the independence of the OEP. Any guidance that diverted OEP scrutiny away from entire policy areas, outside of existing statutory steers on prioritisation, would not be in keeping with that duty. This is not a power that could be used simply to divert the OEP away from investigating issues that could be in some way inconvenient to the Government. The provision for guidance on how the OEP intends to exercise its functions means that the guidance will, by its nature, be on the OEP’s approach to those issues, rather than defining specific areas to prioritise or deprioritise.
The OEP will operate with a very high degree of independence, especially when it comes to making individual enforcement decisions. In exercising its discretion in individual cases, the OEP would need to have regard to all relevant factors, but must ultimately take all its decisions objectively, impartially and independently of Government. Furthermore, the Environment Bill already provides that the OEP should focus on cases that have national implications. Guidance could not be issued that went against the existing provisions, but it could instead add further detail. However, it will remain up to the OEP, within the framework provided by the Bill and any guidance, to determine whether cases that have a discrete local impact also have national implications, or for some other reason have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be considered serious, or to be prioritised for the purposes of its enforcement functions.
It is important to note that the Secretary of State is also able to offer guidance on how the OEP should respect the integrity of other bodies and existing statutory regimes. With such a broad remit, the OEP will be able to scrutinise all public authorities, including many expert scientific bodies. This ability will be important for it to be able to take a broad view and identify systemic issues.
I am sure the OEP will be extremely effective, but it will be a relatively small body with a broad remit. The decisions of organisations such as the Centre for  Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which employs hundreds of world-leading marine scientists, will be based on deep expertise and often highly technical scientific data. The OEP will need to be mindful of that in its own decision making when scrutinising such bodies. It is important to get the balance right to maintain confidence and integrity within existing regimes, and guidance could help to address that. We believe the power is important to ensure accountability, so that the OEP can contribute to delivering environmental improvements in the way I think we all agree it should: by acting strategically not just in the short term, but long into the future.
I can also confirm that this Government will not issue guidance to the OEP before the initial setting up of the OEP or before it has had the chance to develop its own enforcement policy. I recognise the points that hon. Members have raised, which is why the Government have previously reintroduced a provision for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise any draft guidance before it is issued.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Rebecca Pow: I hope that might answer the point the hon. Member was going to ask.
Draft guidance will need to be laid before both Houses for 21 days. During that time, either House will be able to review the guidance and make recommendations or resolutions to which the Government must respond. Select Committees, such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, may also wish to take the opportunity to scrutinise the guidance, and Ministers would be obliged to respond to them in the usual manner.
I turn now to Lords amendment 33B on environmental review, tabled by the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu that I am tabling today. On environmental review, the key area of debate has been the remedies available in the event a breach of environmental law if that is confirmed by the court. At the heart of the issue has always been the fact that through environmental review the OEP will have the ability to bring cases to court outside standard judicial review time limits, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken. For that reason, the Government have maintained that bespoke provision is necessary to ensure certainty and fairness for third parties who have acted in line with decisions made by public bodies, and to protect good administration.
The OEP may pursue cases for enforcement action only if it considers that the conduct in question would constitute a “serious” failure to comply with environmental law. Clause 22(7) states that the OEP must have regard, among other things,
“to the particular importance of prioritising cases that it considers have or may have national implications.”
The OEP will have discretion to interpret those criteria, setting out its approach in its enforcement policy, but it follows, in the Government’s view, that cases which have only a local concern, for example most individual planning and environmental permitting decisions, are unlikely to have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be prioritised. The OEP could pursue such cases if it  considers they are indicative of a broader or more systemic issue or failure, or if especially serious harm has or may result from the potential failure. The OEP, for example, could consider it in relation to the destruction of a nationally important population of a rare and protected species, but it should not be the norm.
However, we have listened to and carefully considered the views and concerns raised in this House and in the other place, and agree it is important that the protections are balanced with the need to prevent or mitigate serious environmental harm. As such, I am pleased to be able to propose an amendment in lieu, which strikes that important balance. In introducing it to the House, I must repeat my earlier acknowledgement that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in future. The amendment will ensure that a high bar is still set for the granting of remedies where third parties may be affected. This is set out in condition A of our amendment. But, critically, it will also provide that, even where condition A is not met, if the court is satisfied that it is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health, and there is an exceptional public interest reason to do so, the court will be able to grant a remedy. This is set out in condition B. It gives the court discretion to undertake a real and meaningful, albeit weighted, balancing exercise. It means that there would no longer be a blanket prohibition on the granting of remedies where third parties are likely to suffer substantial hardship or prejudice.
In the rare cases where third parties may be affected, however, I would like to illustrate how this provision could operate with an example. Potentially, on an environmental review, the court could rule that an environmental permit had been granted to a factory operator with such inadequate conditions that it was unlawful. If the court concluded that condition A was not met, because substantial hardship to the factory operator would be likely to result from quashing the permit, it would turn to condition B. If, in the absence of a quashing order, it is likely that the factory would continue to release harmful air pollutants with serious impacts for the health of the local population, the court may conclude that it is necessary to grant a remedy in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health. At this point, the court would need to weigh the public interest in preventing serious harm against the public interest in preventing substantial hardship occurring to the third party. In order to grant a remedy, the court would need to be satisfied that the public interest in preventing this serious harm substantially outweighed the interest in preventing hardship, thereby constituting an “exceptional public interest reason” to grant the remedy.
In such cases, where severe damage to the environment or people’s health could occur or continue if no remedy was granted, the court may choose to grant a remedy. Given the types of serious cases that the OEP is likely to bring, we consider that this test strikes the appropriate balance. I have every faith that it will do so and that the amendment will therefore be a valuable addition to the OEP’s enforcement framework as a whole. I hope that the amendment provides reassurance that the Government are thoroughly committed to protecting against environmental harms through the OEP’s enforcement functions, and that the House will support it today.
I turn to what I believe most people are waiting for: the issue of storm overflows. I hope that colleagues will bear with me while I set out our position, because I believe that this is extremely important. So many people have spoken to and contacted me constantly about this whole process and I will take questions at the end, if that is okay, because we are so tight for time.
I have been clear that the frequency with which sewage is discharged from storm overflows into our waters is absolutely unacceptable. It is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the campaigning of many others that the phrase “storm overflow” is now used 47 times on the face of the Bill. However, I recognise that many hon. Members wanted to see more, and I am pleased to have tabled a further amendment that says that water companies “must” secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from their storm overflows. In this legal drafting, the word “must” means that we are placing a direct legal duty on water companies to do this. That is really crucial. Water companies will have a simple choice: reduce sewage discharges or face the consequences—that is, strong enforcement action.
Turning back to the specific amendment from the Duke of Wellington, we have redrafted it to ensure that it has proper legal effect and there is more effective implementation, and we have gone further in places. I have had much discussion with the Duke of Wellington —I greatly respect and value that—and I would like to clarify a number of points. This amendment places a clear legal duty on water companies to deliver improvements —something that the Duke particularly pressed for. Indeed, ours is a stronger duty than in his wording. Our amendment will ensure that they have to take the necessary steps relative to the size of the problem. We have taken the “progressive” reduction wording from the Lords amendment. “Progressive” means that water companies must continue to take action even after the next price review period and even after they have achieved a significant reduction and tackled high-priority sites, as required in the draft policy statement to the regulator, Ofwat.

Geraint Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: I will not take any interventions, because I just want to get this on the record, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind—I know that he is passionate about this whole environmental issue.
I am aware of some wildly inaccurate claims that have been circulating online for the past so many days that we are somehow legalising the dumping of raw sewage—we are not. Our amendment goes further than the Lords amendment by legally specifying that “adverse impacts” includes impacts both on the environment and on public health—for bathers, canoeists and so forth. Enforcement was a key part of the Duke’s amendment and our version goes further, because it will dock in with the existing enforcement regime in the Water Industry Act 1991. Ofwat can issue enforcement notices that can direct specific actions or fine companies up to 10% of their annual turnover, running to millions of pounds. If we do not see sufficient progress from water companies, Ofwat and the Government will be able to take enforcement  action, and we will not hesitate to do so. Not only that—under other provisions in the Bill, the OEP will be able to take enforcement action against the Environment Agency or Ofwat or, indeed, the Government, should it feel that any of us are not adequately discharging our duties.
There has been much debate about the costs required to eliminate sewage discharges from storm overflows. Last week, the Storm Overflows Taskforce, which I set up, published research on this issue. It estimated that the complete elimination of sewage discharges through storm overflows in England, which many are calling for more broadly, is likely to cost between approximately £350 billion and £600 billion. That could mean up to £1,000 on bills every year. There are important discussions to be had about the best way to address this important issue while protecting bill payers, and this very morning, I called the CEOs of all the water companies in to a meeting. They assured me that they recognise the need for urgent action. We must see better performance from them and I will be watching the progress closely, as indeed, will the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I would much very like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and the Duke of Wellington for their tireless efforts on this issue. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government: you will be voting directly—

Eleanor Laing: No, I will not be voting at all.

Rebecca Pow: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that is a pity. My fault—I got carried away. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government, and this means a vote directly to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, with greater protection for our waters than ever before.

Luke Pollard: Here we are again—it is 648 days since the Environment Bill was first introduced to Parliament and we are still here debating it, trying to get bolder action from Ministers on the environment, climate and nature. Ministers, I am afraid, are still dragging their heels in not introducing the bold action that we need—particularly against the routine discharge of raw sewage into rivers—still favouring a weaker watchdog than they should be.
In the middle of a climate and ecological crisis and at the very time that the UK is hosting COP26, this is generational injustice in action. We need to see bolder action. There was no mention from the Chancellor in the Budget of climate or nature. In fact, there were cuts to domestic flying duty, coupled with the Prime Minister flying from Glasgow to London on a private jet. I am sure that the Minister will have joined me when we came back from COP in travelling by train, rather than flying, and the Prime Minister should have done so as well. It is a wrong, bad, outdated message to say, “Do as I say. Don’t do as I do”, but I am afraid that that is what we are used to. It sets an appalling example for the world that the Prime Minister did not take the train instead of taking the plane, and it is up to us here to sort that out.
Britain is, again, the dirty man of Europe. Not one English river is in a healthy condition; not one meets good chemical standards.

Layla Moran: The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that I am seeking water bathing status for the Thames along Port Meadow. One reason why that is so important is the dire state of our rivers: none of them is chemically sound. The illnesses that my constituents have reported, when they just wanted to get into the river for the sake of their mind and body, are atrocious. Does he agree that this is a national issue that is not adequately addressed by the amendments, and we need to go further?

Luke Pollard: As a keen wild swimmer, I want bathing water quality in our rivers to improve massively, not just for swimmers but for the natural world, so I support the hon. Lady in her efforts.
Water quality in our rivers in England is not good enough. In the past year alone, raw sewage was discharged into UK rivers and seas more than 400,000 times. The Government’s response was to whip their MPs to vote against an amendment that would have stopped raw human sewage pouring into our precious rivers and seas. I am afraid that the message that that vote sent was a poor one.
Then came the rightful public outcry, which shamed the Government into a U-turn after days of digging in their heels. They have now adopted much of the amendment that they voted against, which is welcome, but they have not adopted it all. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their time speaking to the Opposition about the issue, and I am grateful for the Minister’s words today putting our concerns on record, but I have to say that publishing an amendment at 5 pm last Friday did not really build trust, either among Members on both sides of the House who wanted to see the detail or among the stakeholders who were looking forward to scrutinising carefully what the Minister had to say.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Trust is paramount for the communities up and down the great rivers of this country, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. Reading is downstream from Abingdon; London is further downstream. We are all deeply concerned about the state of our rivers. Although the Government have given some concessions and have listened to some extent, the way they have behaved still leaves a lot to be desired. The public remain deeply concerned about the issue.

Luke Pollard: I believe that the public are seriously concerned about what has happened in the House over the past few weeks. They have been alerted and awakened to the volume of raw sewage discharged into their rivers and seas; they want faster and bolder action from Ministers now that they are aware of this absolute outrage in our environment. That is why we need to build trust again.
In her speech and in earlier remarks, the Minister has cited a figure of more than £600 billion, but the maths is disputed, to say the least. It is not sufficient to say, “To deal with this properly will cost £600 billion, but to deal with tinkering around the edges will cost hardly anything on the side,” and pretend that those are fair options to choose between. We need a much bolder approach, with honesty and clarity rather than threats about bills and about how the process works.
We also need to look at how to build trust with the public again, because they are very concerned. I share the Minister’s concern about fake news online and do not wish to see wildly inaccurate claims made, so such a large figure needs to be backed up with clear evidence. I have tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for the working behind it; I hope she will be able to confirm the answer in due course.
Labour wants a stronger amendment. The Minister’s amendment in lieu of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment is confined to storm overflows rather than addressing the sewerage system as a whole—a really important point. There is no specific duty on Ofwat or the Environment Agency to ensure compliance, but there should be. We need to focus on reducing harm, rather than just on the adverse impacts. The amendment in lieu looks like the Government looking busy without making a real difference, so I want to set out three things that I hope the Minister will confirm today that could make a difference.

John Redwood: We all want to clean up the rivers. Could the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the timetable and cost that he thinks would be appropriate?

Luke Pollard: Funnily enough, that is a point that I was going to refer to the Minister, because there is no timetable—a really glaring hole in what has been published today. A progressive reduction in discharges sounds all well and good, but I would like to progressively reduce the amount of cake I eat, and yet there is a big difference between doing that over a day and doing it over a year. I am a big fan of cake, as some in the House may know.
Let us get down to the detail. There are three things that I would like the Minister to confirm; otherwise, I fear that we will not be able to support her amendment. First, will she commit to reviewing the scale of fines so that water companies that continue to routinely discharge raw sewage face higher penalties?
Secondly, Labour wants the guidance in the strategic policy statement for Ofwat to be super-strengthened so that there is a clear direction to water companies to target the most polluting discharges now, with a plan to address the rest urgently against a clear timeframe. Progress by DEFRA, Ofwat, the EA and water companies should have proper parliamentary scrutiny annually via the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, or potentially the Environmental Audit Committee.
Thirdly, will the Minister set out in detail what she means by “progressive reduction”? That means answering two very simple questions: by when, and how much? If that cannot be set out, it is just spin. I fear that water companies could say, “We are meeting our progressive reduction with these two tiny projects over here,” and not set out a clear commitment. By when and how much will discharges be progressively reduced?

Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Luke Pollard: I will keep going, just because of the pressure on time.
It is not just the Opposition who have concerns. Water UK and water companies tell us that they have concerns about the Government’s amendment and favour the Duke of Wellington’s. Green groups, environmental groups, angling groups, fishing groups and swimming  groups also say that they favour the Duke of Wellington’s amendment over the compromise amendment, so there is widespread concern.
There is a lesson for Tory Back Benchers from the sewage vote and from what happened last week with parliamentary standards and corruption. It is now a brave Tory Back Bencher who will listen to their Whips on unpopular votes, because after dragging their MPs into the gutter, the Government are likely to U-turn a week later and make them look foolish. However, let us be clear about the agency that each Member of Parliament has. The last vote on sewage was a disaster for the reputation of many Members of this House. They knew what they were doing: they were putting the party Whip ahead of the environment, and voters will judge them on it. Doing it once was a mistake; doing it twice is a pattern that voters will recognise and will vote on accordingly next time round.
It is vital that we rebuild trust on the issue. The sewage scandal has been a shameful episode for the Government. There is real cross-party desire to make our approach stronger. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three elements that I have outlined so that we can support her amendment; if we do not get that reassurance, I am afraid that we cannot.
Labour wants the OEP, instead of being a lapdog, to be a strong, robustly independent watchdog. The Minister has tried to put reassurances on the record that the Government will not seek to frustrate the OEP if it needs to hold them to account and take enforcement action against Ministers. In the past week, however, we have seen exactly what happens when the rules no longer suit the Government, so we want them in the Bill—not just a statement from the Dispatch Box that may or may not be used in future court cases, but clear rules in the Bill.
What the Minister set out about having regard to the guidance is welcome, but the experience with budget-setting powers and with the Electoral Commission, where Ministers have threatened a public body on receiving bad news from it in another investigation, is a bad precedent that needs to be removed.
We want the Bill to be better. There are good things in it, but on the whole it is just a bit “meh”: it does not reach the scale of the action we need for the scale of the crisis we face. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three things that I mentioned. If not, I am afraid that Labour will not be able to support her compromise amendment on sewage and will vote against it so that we can secure a vote on the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, which is far superior.

Philip Dunne: I am very conscious of time, so I will be brief. I rise to discuss Lords amendment 45 and the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 45B. I thank the Minister for the time that she and the Secretary of State have taken to engage with me and with the Duke of Wellington in relation to his amendment, which I supported at the last stage. I particularly thank the Minister for her clarification today that the Government amendment in lieu places in the Bill a clear duty on water companies to reduce the  impact of sewage discharges. That issue was at the heart of my private Member’s Bill and is included in her amendment.
What the Minister’s amendment adds, which was not in my private Member’s Bill or, frankly, in the Duke’s amendment, is the commitment to include a reduction in harm to public health, which will be of great benefit to the increasing numbers of people who use our rivers for swimming, canoeing and other activities that involve actually getting into the water, rather than just touching it with a fly or a leaded weight to catch a fish. The public health impact is something that we should not forget.
There have been comments about how effective the Minister’s proposed enforcement regime will be. I think that locking the enforcement regime into the existing Water Industry Act regime is potentially a more effective method than the one proposed in the previous Lords amendment. Of course there will have to be enforcement, and one of the big problems that we have had with the Environment Agency over the last 30 years is that its powers have not been rigorously enforced. I strongly encourage the Minister, as she engages with the consequences of the spending review, to urge the agency to increase its enforcement efforts in respect of the water companies.
There have also been comments—a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), with whom I have also engaged on this matter, and from outside—to the effect that the concept of a progressive reduction could be trivial. The hon. Gentleman gave some examples. I think that that is to fundamentally misunderstand how the amendment will lock into the other measures in the Bill. Before my private Member’s Bill emerged, the Government had already indicated that they would introduce for the first time in statute a requirement for sewerage undertakings to produce a drainage and sewerage management plan to last five years. Every five years, it would be updated. Within that plan, there is a requirement to reduce the impact of the activities on the environment.
The proposed new clause locks the duty into those plans, and the plans are subject to a Government power to rewrite them if the Secretary of State of the day does not believe that they are good enough or go far enough. So there is, in my view, a clear link between the amendment and requiring water companies to make a progressive reduction in sewage discharges of materiality. That seems to have been missed by many of the commentators who have been complaining about whether the Bill has teeth.
In addition—as the Minister said—to this set of requirements on water companies, the office for environmental protection will have the power to investigate poor behaviour on the part of companies that do not meet their statutory duties in the Bill, which include a progressive reduction in sewage discharges and their impact. It will be able to consider whether the Environment Agency is doing its job in regulating the companies’ progressive reduction of those discharges, and, as we have just heard, it can also investigate Ofwat.
For all those reasons, I think that the Bill provides a clear direction to water companies that they must reduce sewage discharges, which, as Members in all parts of the House agree, have got to stop. I will be supporting the amendment.

Deidre Brock: I will not speak for very long. I am aware—as always—that the Bill is largely concerned with English environmental matters, as environment is for the most part devolved to Scotland, and I have to say, thank goodness for that! The Lords amendments serve to highlight some of the progress that Scotland has made in environmental protection.
In respect of the amendments on the OEP, I should point out that we have already established an independent governance body in Environmental Standards Scotland, which is fully independent of the Scottish Government and answerable to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government were happy to support it, because they know that true independence of regulators is a vital part of their role.
It seems to me that the UK Government’s reluctance to accept independent oversight is one of the main causes of delay to the implementation of the Bill. It strikes me as incredible that one of the cornerstones of environmental protection in England, post Brexit, is an issue still being argued about by this Government. It exposes the fact that our departure from the EU leaves us all very vulnerable to this Government, any future decisions that they might make to slash regulations,  and subsequent environmental backsliding. It is also disappointing to note that the Government have resisted calls to take really strong action through the Bill, such as implementing the World Health Organisation’s standards for air quality, which we have done in Scotland. Let me also record again my utter dismay that the Government inserted an amendment via the House of Lords, the intent and outcome of which I still deplore. UK Ministers ignored the express wishes of the Scottish Parliament as detailed in the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 on a devolved issue, and cut those wishes down.
Let me turn to the amendments on sewage. Water is an area very clearly devolved to Scotland. Scottish Water is a statutory organisation, accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It is owned, if you like, by the people for the people, and that is the way the Scottish people like it. Although we have our own problems with outdated Victorian sewer systems struggling to cope with the “once in a hundred years” events that now seem to be occurring every two to three years, the fact remains that any profits made by Scottish Water are invested in the services and infrastructure of Scotland’s waterways rather than the pockets of shareholders, and that Scottish Water does not carry the stratospheric levels of debt carried by English water companies—and that is the way the people of Scotland like it too.
Let me be absolutely clear: this is a devolved area, and the amendment clearly states that it concerns English water companies. I think it important to remind the House that there is clear blue water between the situation in England and that in Scotland. Although, as I have said, we in Scotland have our own problems with ageing systems that require large-scale investment in the face of the climate crisis whose real effects we are starting to see in our communities, and no one is suggesting that the situation in Scotland is perfect—indeed, I am certain that this is one of the first issues that Environmental Standards Scotland will look at—the principle that our  water services remain in public ownership is hugely important, and this Government should remember that.
While water is currently exempt from market access principles in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, delegated powers granted to Ministers in that legislation mean that they can, with very little trouble to themselves, change that situation almost at the stroke of a pen, and with no real reference to the opinions of devolved Governments or, indeed, this Parliament. UK Ministers could submit devolved policy areas to market access principles despite current exemptions, and regardless of the views of the people of Scotland on the matter. Now it is up to the parties of successive UK Governments since privatisation occurred ultimately to explain to the people of England their actions in choosing to place their precious water systems in the hands of profit-driven corporations.
Let me end by saying that if UK Ministers at any stage try to open up the Scottish water supply to market access, the howls of outrage and fury from the people of Scotland will be heard even as far away as this place. I warn the Government of that now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hope that the next contributions will be very brief indeed, because we can only keep the debate running until seven minutes past eight.

Neil Parish: It is a pleasure to speak about these Lords amendments.
I welcome the Government’s progress on the Office for Environmental Protection. I think that its independence is better protected than it was before, but that is something of which we must be very conscious. I believe that it will be very effective under Dame Glenys Stacey, and I think that the Secretary of State will work with her, as will Ministers, to ensure that it is indeed independent. It must have enough resources to be able to continue its work. I hope that it will prevent a great many cases from going to court. We will ultimately need a judicial system to make it work, but I hope that the new system and the new body will bring about many conclusions on environmental problems, and a good deal of advice so that cases do not end up in the courts for years.
I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to welcome the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has put into the outflows amendment, and also the work done by the Duke of Wellington. Together, they have negotiated extremely well—dare I say it—with the Government, and what the Government have now come up with is absolutely right.

Geraint Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we do not accept the Wellington amendment, we will all have to wear Wellington boots to avoid the stools while we are paddling. But does he agree that we also need on-roof water capture with water butts, upstream water capture, and downstream and water processing plant capture so that we can take the pressure off the sewerage system when there is flash flooding, and sort out this problem without immediate massive investment in the sewers?

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him my hon. Friend—from the Select Committee. As he rightly says, we need to capture more storm water and rainwater, because it is unfortunately getting into the sewers and causing these outflows. That is an important point. The water companies have to ensure that they recompense their shareholders, but having done an enquiry in previous Parliaments, I know that we have to apply a lot of heat to those companies to ensure that they put the investment into curing the problem of outflows. We also have to ensure that the Environment Agency and Ofwat use their teeth on those companies to make that happen.
I believe that we can do this. There is a great deal of cost involved, but those companies need to concentrate a lot of their resources on these issues to ensure the quality of the water we bathe in, the rivers that we fish in and those that we want to swim in. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I also do a bit of wild swimming. I swim in the River Parrett, so I will probably end up in the Bristol channel one day. But seriously, I believe that we will clean up the water but we must put pressure on the water companies. What the Minister has said is welcome, and I know that the Secretary of State will also put pressure on them. I will stop there, because I know that many hon. Members from across the House and from Devon and Cornwall and across the west country want to speak on this issue.

Eleanor Laing: I will now put on a time limit of three minutes so that we can get as many people in as possible. If people could speak for less than three minutes, that would be absolutely great.

Fleur Anderson: I want to thank everyone in my constituency who has written to me about the Environment Bill during its long progress. It has been a long time coming, but I will be brief. I would also like to thank those in the other place who have put up a good fight and improved the Bill. I am disappointed that, despite all the wrangling, the debates and the evidence, there is still an enormous gap between the Government’s rhetoric on the environment and this Bill, which simply does not go far enough. While all the eyes and hopes of the world are on Glasgow and COP26, the Government are doing all they can to resist introducing concrete protections, leaving our environment as a bargaining chip for new trade agreements that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards. They cannot have it both ways.
I am disappointed that the Government have refused to include World Health Organisation air quality targets in the Bill. There is much unfinished business here, on trees and on single-use plastics, and I must include wet wipes in that. The Office for Environmental Protection was meant to hold Ministers to account on their green policies, but the simple truth is that the Government’s preferred OEP will lack independence and will not be able to hold Tory Ministers to account in the way that they have promised. That is why we had such tortuous explanations of how it will work in the opening statement: the Bill is simply not clear enough and does not go far enough. I therefore urge colleagues to support Lords amendments 31C and 75C.
I am proud to have the River Thames in my constituency, but we have a dirty water emergency. While the Government’s proposal is a big improvement on what went before, it still does not place a duty on the Secretary of State, as set out in Lords amendment 45B proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to tackle sewage, to tackle that plastic getting out and to tackle the killing of fish, which happens on a regular basis worldwide. This progressive reduction does not cut it with those of us on the Opposition Benches. In short, the Bill is still not fit for purpose. It has certainly improved since its First Reading nearly two years ago. I was proud to be on the Bill Committee, in which nearly 200 amendments that would have improved the Bill were tabled, but not one of them was agreed to.
We have had to drag the Government kicking and screaming just to get the Bill to this stage, and that is embarrassing when the UK is supposed to be showing global leadership on the climate emergency. There have been a lot of bold words from the Government, and I really hope to see them put into practice, but I fear that the Office for Environmental Protection will not be able to enforce everything, just as the Environment Agency has not been able to enforce everything, and that is why we have our dirty rivers. We will be cheering this on, and we will hope for more, but we are disappointed by the progress so far.

Kelly Tolhurst: I would very much like to thank the Minister for her clarity today. I represent a constituency that has a great river running through it. It is a river that I have sailed on all my life and also swum in all my life, albeit sometimes unintentionally. This whole debate around the sewage amendment is very personal to me because I am the daughter of a boatbuilder who often used to work on boats on his creek right next to raw sewage and water scum. Nobody on the Government Benches could deny that that kind of environment is totally disgusting.
Also, this year we saw an unprecedented period in which our beautiful Kent beaches were shut because of an absolute disaster involving the dispersal of sewage from the overflows. There is no doubt that water companies pumping sewage into our waterways in 2021 is disgusting. Two weeks ago, I supported the Duke of Wellington’s amendment because I wanted the Government to go as far as they could practically go in stopping this practice. I am very thankful for the work of the Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and for the discussions that have gone on in these two weeks to ensure that we have been able to bring forward this amendment today. I will support the Government tonight, because I totally believe that this new duty, combined with other measures in the Bill, will be a major step towards ending the use of storm overflows.
I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for whom I have great respect. We need to recognise that this Government and these Ministers are the first to tackle the issue of sewage and storm overflows. No Government have done that previously, and I am proud that the Minister, who is so passionate about this issue, has worked incredibly hard to accommodate our worries and fears. The Environment Bill is a major piece of work for the protection and  improvement of our environment. Make no mistake, these measures will cost the water companies and the bill payers, but I believe that they will bring the water companies into line so that we can stop this disgusting practice. I will be very happy to support the Minister and her team tonight.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, but I will not take too long. I want to ask the Minister a quick question. I am pleased to see what is coming forward in relation to single-use items and the conservation covenants, and I am pleased that those measures have all been passed. However, I still have a concern about the Office for Environmental Protection’s enforcement policy. Lords amendment 31 states:
“The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions, including in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy,
(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and
(c) preparing and publishing its budget.”
That has merit in my eyes, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s rationale as to why they believe it is unnecessary, as I believe that similar amendments were made in relation to Northern Ireland.
I am also gratified to learn that there is now a Government amendment in place for a duty to be enshrined in law to ensure that water companies secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges from storm overflows. That has been lacking for many years, and I have seen the devastating effects of discharge from storm overflows on homes that merit at least this form of protection. For too many years, the water companies have been doing the bare minimum. I seek the Minister’s confirmation that more will be done to ensure that the rivers and waterways around this great United Kingdom are protected, that more will be done than just the bare minimum, and that this will be the beginning of progress. We must all take our obligation to future generations more seriously. I often say, as others do, that we leave our environment for the generations that come after us, and for the sake of my grandchildren—and my great-grandchildren, when that time comes—we must ensure that the water companies step up to their agenda.

Bob Seely: I will be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Ministers for listening and for moving on this issue, and above all I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who was sitting next to me, for his leadership on this issue. I do not think that this could have happened without him. To be blunt, if this amendment is good enough for him, it is good enough for me. He would not support it if it were not strong.
On the Isle of Wight we have some wonderfully clean beaches, but any sewage discharge is unacceptable. In a place that is environmentally sensitive—we are a UNESCO biosphere—and that has so many amenity sites because of so many visitors swimming, having human poo on our beaches is not acceptable. The same applies in the Solent, for sailors, whether they are in the Solent accidentally or deliberately. We need to clean this up.
I also note that I know the Government are somewhat victims of their own success. It is great being lectured by the Opposition, but this groundbreaking Bill is being brought in by the Government side, and we should all be supporting it.
I have two questions for the Minister, who was kind enough to say that she would take them. First, the Government have power to push the water firms to go further, faster. Will she be willing, and will the Secretary of State next to her be willing, to use that power to ensure that the water firms understand the urgency of this situation for our waterways and our beaches?
Secondly, and if I understand it rightly, can the Minister confirm that ecologically sensitive sites and amenity sites, as which the Isle of Wight’s beaches both qualify, will be given priority? I am writing to the water firms about that this evening, but anything the Minister could do to clear that up and to ensure that those amenity and ecologically sensitive sites are prioritised would be very welcome.

Ruth Cadbury: I rise to oppose the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 45B on sewage discharges. We need higher fines for polluters and annual parliamentary scrutiny and to define progressive reductions—how much, and by when—of sewage discharges, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said.
The Thames runs through my constituency; I have kayaked there, I have paddle-boarded and on Saturday I ran 26.2 miles along it. I quote:
“The real test of Government seriousness is whether they also instruct regulators to authorise investment in sewers, and end policies that make the problem worse.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the water companies on 22 October. Why were the Government dragging their feet when the water companies were encouraging them to support the Duke of Wellington’s amendment?
There has been broad support for stronger action. Yet again, the Minister quotes the £600 billion cost that she says dealing with the problem will cause, but the water companies say the cost is in the region of £13 billion to £20 billion using concrete storage tanks, or £20 billion to £30 billion more if they are accompanied by natural drainage schemes that bring wider community benefits. That compares with the £1.2 billion already being spent by industry on overflows between 2020 and 2025. This does not represent some unfeasibly large jump in effort, say the water companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport explained that the amendment does not go far enough, so Labour will not be supporting it. DEFRA has been decimated; the Minister herself just now described the OEP as a small organisation. The Government’s approach to this aspect of the Environment Bill—in fact, all aspects of the Environment Bill—is yet another example of how they just pay lip service to the environment.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I will be brief, because I know we want to end. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for articulating what I would have wanted to say, had I had longer to speak. I also  thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their accessibility in this ongoing negotiation on sewage storm overflows.
This issue has been a passion of mine since childhood, when I grew up on the Yorkshire coast and swam in said sewage. Now I have the great privilege of representing two coastlines in Cornwall, as well as inland waterways, and to have been a member of Surfers Against Sewage since before I moved to Cornwall. It has been a great regret that the organisation has been at the centre of a very nasty campaign, supported by hon. Members on the Opposition side, accusing me of having voted to pump raw sewage into the oceans, which I have not. All of us in this Chamber can agree that we want to put an end to that. If anybody accuses me of that again, I would be grateful if they wrote to my office so that I can provide them with a detailed answer.
I look forward to seeing Truro and Falmouth benefit from the myriad of measures within the Bill, which I do not have time to go into. I am grateful to Members of both Houses of Parliament, of all political persuasions, for showing how well this House works and how it is possible to get the Government to move on something that is extremely important to everyone. I will leave my comments there, because I know that we are short of time.

Tim Farron: I will finish within a minute and 20 seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us just focus on the sewage, then, given that that is the time available to us.
We have, thanks to the Government amendment, now a duty on water companies to progressively reduce the amount of sewage discharged through storm overflows —but there are no targets for either volume or timescale. That leaves water companies with the power to continue doing what they do now. This amendment is something to get Conservative Back Benchers off the hook, rather than to give water companies the direction they need.
I represent the English Lake District. I am disgusted that there is raw sewage being dumped into Lake Windermere for 71 days, collectively, in any given year. This amendment will do nothing to stop that. Currently, a water company dumps 40% of all the phosphates in Windermere. If that goes down to 39%, there is no measure to say whether that is okay, so I assume the water companies will think that it is okay.
What about timescale? What if the amount goes down over five years or over 10 years? All the Government amendment does is give the Back Benchers of the Conservative party an excuse to write to their constituents and say, “There has been further movement in the right direction.” It allows the Government to let the water companies off the hook, while doing nothing at all to demand what is necessary to clean up our lakes and our rivers.

Rebecca Pow: We have been two and a quarter years bringing this enormous Bill through Parliament. I want to thank all hon. Members and hon. Friends for their contributions, particularly those who have approached me personally over the past few days: my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), for St Austell and Newquay  (Steve Double), for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), for Havant (Alan Mak), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and for Watford (Dean Russell).
I also thank many others from all around our coasts, including my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). If I have left anybody out, I will be writing to them—[Interruption.] And my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). Yes, we will be looking at ecological sites and bathing waters first when we bring in the storm overflows legislation. That should placate the wild swimmer from the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
I have outlined in enormous detail why we should vote for these amendments—
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 20 October).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83G).
That this House insists on its amendments 31A and 31B and disagrees with Lords amendment 31C.

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 162.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Clause 37 - Environmental review

Resolved,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33B and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.—(Rebecca Pow.)

After Clause 78 - Storm overflows

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 45B and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 163.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 45B accordingly agreed to and amendments (a) and (b) accordingly made in lieu.

Schedule 3 - The Office for Environmental Protection: Northern Ireland

Resolved,
That this House insists on its amendments 75A and 75B and disagrees with Lords amendment 75C.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Lords amendments 85D and 85E agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on amendments 31A and 31B and disagreeing to Lords amendment 31C, and for insisting on amendments 75A and 75B and disagreeing to Lords amendment 75C;
That Rebecca Pow, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Selaine Saxby, Jo Gideon, Mary Glindon, Ruth Jones and Deidre Brock be members of the Committee;
That Rebecca Pow be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill Programme (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 30 November 2020 in the last Session of Parliament (Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 17 December 2020 in that Session (Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments 4, 5, 1, 2, 3.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

After Clause 23 - Network Diversification

Julia Lopez: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 1 to 3.

Julia Lopez: I am pleased that the Bill has returned to the House from the other place and for the chance to speak to it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for his tremendous work in bringing it through the House earlier in this Session and in the last.
The Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world. It will protect networks, even as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our telecoms critical national infrastructure both now and for the future. As the House will be aware, the Bill introduces a stronger telecoms security framework, which places new security duties on public telecoms providers and introduces new national security powers to address the risks posed by high-risk vendors.
I will briefly summarise the changes that have been made to the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 were tabled by my colleague in the other place, Lord Parkinson. Lords amendment 4 relates to reporting on supply chain diversification and Lords amendment 5 relates to reviewing actions taken by Five Eyes nations regarding high-risk vendors. I will speak first to Lords amendments 1 to 3.
The important role of parliamentary scrutiny has been raised in debate throughout the passage of the Bill. In the other place, particular attention has been paid to scrutiny of our strengthened telecoms security framework. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted that the new codes of practice were central to this framework, as they will contain specific technical information for telecoms providers. The Committee recommended that the negative procedure should be applied to the issuing of codes of practice. We carefully considered the Committee’s recommendation over the summer, and tabled amendments 1 to 3 in the other place to accept them.
The amendments will require the Government to lay a draft of any code of practice before Parliament for 40 days. Both this House and the other place will then have a period of time to scrutinise the code of practice before it is issued. These amendments demonstrate that we have listened and that we are committed to every aspect of the framework receiving appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I commend these amendments to the House.
I will now speak to Lords amendment 4, regarding diversification. This amendment would place an annual requirement on the Government to report on the impacts of their 5G telecoms diversification strategy on the security of public telecommunications networks and services.  It would also require a debate in the House on that report. The Government cannot support the amendment for two reasons. The first objection relates to the flexibility necessary for diversification. A reporting requirement of this nature is restrictive and premature. This is an evolving market that is rapidly changing, and we need the flexibility to focus our attention where it will have the greatest impact. While our focus is currently on diversifying radio access networks, once that part of the mobile network has been diversified we will move on to focus on other areas. Committing to reporting on specific criteria would limit us to reporting against the risks as we find them today and would not afford us the flexibility that diversification requires.

Kevan Jones: I am very interested in what the Minister says, because one of the major themes, and one of the big failures of the 5G debacle over Huawei, is the fact that we do not have diversification in the network. How will the Government be able to do a stocktake every year so that we as parliamentarians, and others, will be able to judge that what is being said about a commitment to diversification, which is in a lot of policy papers, is actually happening in practice?

Julia Lopez: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comment. Hon. Members will be able to raise in the normal way, through parliamentary questions, scrutiny at oral questions and Committee work, what we are doing in this area. We are reporting regularly on some of our diversification efforts and some of the money that we are spending from the spending review.

Kevan Jones: I accept that, although the current Government’s response to parliamentary questions these days is sometimes lacking. What benchmark, then, will the Government use for ensuring diversification? I accept that the Minister is the Minister today, but there will possibly be a future Minister—she will not be there for ever—so how are we to judge that we are actually going to get that diversification? Without that, we will end up as we have done now, with a network that is market-led and diversification is not in the market.

Julia Lopez: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are committed to reporting to the House on a regular basis, but we do not want to limit ourselves on specifically what we will be reporting on in technological terms, because this is a rapidly evolving marketplace and we need to make sure that we have the flexibility to deal with particular infrastructure challenges as and when they come along.
My sense is that this amendment is intended to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on delivering their diversification strategy. If that is the case, a reporting requirement of this nature is unnecessary. This House and the other place already have mechanisms to hold the Government to account through parliamentary questions, as I said, and through the various Select Committees that can ably scrutinise this work. That is the appropriate way for scrutiny to take place.
Our second objection relates to focus. This is, first and foremost, a national security Bill. It is intended to strengthen the security and resilience of all our public telecoms networks, be they fixed line or mobile—2G, 3G, 4G, 5G and beyond. While the Government’s 5G telecoms diversification strategy has been developed to  support that objective, it is not the sole objective of the strategy. This is market-making work. It is not a panacea to raise the security of our public networks. Moreover, the current scope of the strategy is not to address the entire telecoms market but to diversify a specific subset of it. The amendment extends the Bill beyond its intended national security focus and creates an inflexible reporting requirement on a strategy that will need to continue to evolve. We have been insistent on this position, and that is why I ask that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to review decisions taken by Five Eyes partners to ban telecommunications vendors on security grounds. In particular, it would require the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with the vendor and consider whether to issue a designated vendor direction, or take a similar action, in the UK. I welcome the intention behind the amendment, which demonstrates that those in all parts of this House and the other place take the security of this country and its people incredibly seriously.
However, while we support the spirit of the amendment, we cannot accept it for four reasons. First, the House will recall that the Bill will provide the Secretary of State with the power to designate specific vendors in the interests of national security for the purpose of issuing a designated vendor direction. In clause 16 there is a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may take into consideration when issuing these designation notices. That list illustrates the kinds of factors we proactively consider on an ongoing basis as part of our national security work. A decision by a Five Eyes partner, or any other international partner, to ban a vendor on security grounds could be considered as part of that process, so this amendment would require us to do something that has been part of the Bill from the outset.

Stephen Flynn: The key remark that the Minister made there was that it “could be” considered. We have seen the Government’s failures previously in relation to Huawei, so why should we have confidence moving forward that this will be any different?

Julia Lopez: I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments. When the Secretary of State is looking to designate a vendor, she will put that to the House to be scrutinised, and we will be scrutinised on this issue through the usual procedures that I have outlined in my previous comments.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome the Minister to her place. If we look back over the past few months, even the past year or so, we see very much that the resistance early on by the UK Government with Huawei, when other Five Eyes countries were banning it, has led to a remarkable back-cost for replacing all this stuff because we failed to take an early decision. While the amendment may not be perfect, it indicates clearly a big weakness in the Government’s position, even in this very good Bill. If Five Eyes countries, which are our main allies in intelligence,  spot there is a problem, we should pause, investigate the reasons why, and then come back to the House with the reasons why we disagree or agree. The amendment aims at doing that, so perhaps the Government should think about amending the Bill in such a way.

Julia Lopez: I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s comments, but it is important that we do not put in primary legislation the specific partners that we should have to listen to on these specific issues. It would create a hierarchy of diplomatic networks.

Iain Duncan Smith: With respect, these are not specific partners; these are our closest allies when it comes to intelligence sharing. They do not get any closer than this. Working with them, as we do in sharing intelligence, means that using systems for sharing that intelligence would corrupt our own ability. I wonder whether the Minister could just slightly reset: these are not just partners.

Julia Lopez: I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s comments. The amendment would require us to do something that has been part of the legislation from the outset. We believe that our existing approach is the right way to continually consider the decisions of our international allies and partners, whether or not they are part of Five Eyes. That brings me to the second objection to the amendment, which is that it is unnecessary because we regularly engage with our Five Eyes partners and are committed to a close and enduring partnership with them. We agree with the other place that where possible, the UK Government should consider the actions of other countries when developing our own policies, and that is exactly what we do already. It is what we have been doing before and during the passage of this legislation.
The intelligence and security agencies across Five Eyes retain close co-operation, which includes frequent dialogue between the National Cyber Security Centre and its international partners. This dialogue includes the sharing of technical expertise on the security of telecoms networks and managing the risks posed by high-risk vendors. There are mechanisms in place for the NCSC to share this and wider information with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Collaboration with our Five Eyes partners forms an intrinsic part of our national security work. The alliance was not created through legislation and it has not required legislation for us to develop and strengthen that relationship, and the amendment would set an unhelpful precedent. We do not need the amendment to compel us to work with our Five Eyes partners.
That takes me to our third reason for resisting the amendment, which is that the UK needs to have the flexibility to develop and encourage international relationships in addition to Five Eyes. Naming individual countries in this way would set an unhelpful precedent for national security legislation in future. As I have acknowledged, it is important that we consider the policies of our Five Eyes partners, namely New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the US, when developing our own policies, but we also need to consider the policies of a wide range of other countries, including those of our European neighbours, such as France and Germany, and those of other nations, such as Japan, South Korea  and India. Stipulating in primary legislation the countries whose policies the UK Government should consider when developing our own national security policies, whether Five Eyes or other countries, would be unhelpful, given the wide-ranging nature of our international collaboration. It would be highly unusual to refer to specific countries in legislation in this way, and this Bill is not the right place to create such a precedent.
The fourth reason for resisting the amendment is that it is impractical because of the many different ways in which other countries operate their national security decision making. The amendment would require us to act whenever a ban takes place in another Five Eyes country, but it may not be immediately clear when a country has taken a decision to ban a vendor, particularly if they have relied on sensitive intelligence to make that decision.
It may not always be apparent why a particular country has banned a particular vendor. There could be any number of reasons why a foreign Government would choose to restrict a company’s ability to operate within that country. Those reasons may not be based purely on national security grounds. I welcome the intention behind the amendment, but we cannot accept it because we feel that it is duplicative, impractical, restrictive and, ultimately, unnecessary.
In summary, the House is presented with a strengthened Bill as Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 will increase the chances of parliamentary scrutiny of the telecoms security framework. As I have set out, however, it would be inappropriate to agree to Lords amendments 4 and 5. I thank the other place for its scrutiny of the Bill. I commend Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the House and ask that the House disagrees with Lords amendments 4 and 5.

Chi Onwurah: I thank colleagues in the other place who have worked hard to improve the Bill. National security is the first duty of any Government and Labour will always put our country’s security first.
The pandemic has shown how important telecommunications networks are. I declare an interest as a former telecoms engineer, but I am sure I speak for the whole House in thanking all those who have kept our networks going during the pandemic. We have been dependent on them to work from home or to keep in touch with family and friends. This House could continue its important work thanks to telecommunications networks, as well as the hard work of House staff and the Speaker’s support.
A secure network is of the utmost importance. Labour welcomes the Bill’s intention while recognising its limitations. I am pleased that the Lords amendments that we are discussing reflect issues that Labour has been raising.
Lords amendment 1 seeks to improve transparency in the use of the Secretary of State’s powers to issue codes of practice to communications providers through the negative procedure. It reflects amendments that we tabled in Committee in response to the sweeping powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and Ofcom. As the Comms Council UK said,
“the Minister will be able to unilaterally make decisions that impact the technical operation and direction of technology companies, with little or no oversight or accountability.”
The House has a duty to ensure that those powers are proportionate and accountable, so we are happy that the Government have bowed to pressure from Labour to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny, even if, in our view, it does not go far enough. Two consequential amendments to Lords amendment 1 set out the conditions for the 40-day scrutiny period and ensure that that time cannot be disrupted by recess or Prorogation so that this House and the other place have sufficient time to scrutinise the code.
Lords amendment 5 is cross party and designed to ensure that the Government review a vendor that is banned in a Five Eyes country. We support the amendment and find the Government’s opposition concerning, as we believe it could threaten our national security.
I find the Minister’s arguments against the amendment somewhat confused. She claims that the amendment is unnecessary because we already monitor Five Eyes countries and would always respond to the actions of our closest intelligence partners, but if that is true, why not formalise it? We are stronger together, specifically with our Five Eyes allies. Instead of putting forward further arguments, I turn to the eloquent explanation of Conservative peer Lord Blencathra:
“All it asks the Government to do…is to review the security arrangements with a telecoms provider if one of our vital, strategic Five Eyes partners bans its equipment. We are not calling for a similar immediate ban, or an eventual ban, we are just saying let us review it and come to a conclusion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2021; Vol. 815, c. 99.]
We will support the amendment.
Lords amendment 4 requires the Secretary of State to report on the diversification strategy’s impact on the security of telecommunications networks. It would also allow for a debate in this House on the report to further strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. Labour supports the removal of high-risk vendors from our telecoms networks, and given the grave situation into which successive Conservative Governments have allowed our networks to fall, it is essential that the Government have the powers to remove Huawei at speed. However, we are left with only two providers, and as we heard repeatedly at every stage of this Bill’s progression, two providers is not diverse, is not resilient and is not secure.
We cannot ensure national security without a diverse supply chain, but I fear that the Government still just do not get it. Let me just take two of the Minister’s arguments. The first argument seems to be, as far as I could comprehend it, that requiring reporting would be “restrictive and premature”, but surely if the Government’s intention is to diversify the supply chain—and we have heard that we cannot have a secure network without a diversified supply chain—the only way a reporting requirement would be limiting is if the Government have no actual intention of doing anything about diversifying it.
The Minister’s second argument seems to be that this is too technologically specific. Lords amendment 4 says:
“The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of progress of the diversification of the telecommunications supply chain on the security of public electronic communication networks and services.”
Would the Minister tell me what in that is specific as to the technology? Indeed, the only specific aspect of technology is a requirement to include future technologies  that may be used as a platform, such as cloud computing. I find the Minister’s reasons for not supporting this amendment concerning. I fear that the Government are just not serious about diversifying our supply chain, and that they do not really have a plan for it.
The Minister mentioned asking parliamentary questions. Just last week, I asked her what funding was available for 5G diversification, and she talked about
“a Future RAN Competition (FRANC) and opening the doors of the SmartRAN Open Network Interoperability Centre (SONIC Labs).”
I want to know how diversification is being achieved and how local sovereign UK capability is being built, not an acronym soup that is ad hoc, hard to digest and dangerously complacent.

Bob Stewart: The hon. Lady is an expert in so far as she was, I understand, a communications engineer. As far as I understand it, there are three suppliers, but one of them we do not particularly want to use, and that leaves two. What other diversification can we do if we only have two? Can we try to build up something very fast, and is that what the hon. Lady is suggesting?

Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I promise not to take advantage of it to set out at length what we could be doing to diversify. I would just say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that we only have two suppliers for 5G now, but the technology is evolving and there are new technologies for the next generation of networks—6G. As he will well remember, we have gone through generations of technology at quite a pace over the last 20 years.
Right now, we should be investing in great UK technologies from companies and start-ups that are working in the field of open RAN and other technologies. Rather than having just one vendor supplying a whole network, as has been the case with Huawei and others, we would have a diverse mix of vendors at every stage of the network—the core and so on—which would enable much greater resilience. We could be doing that. The technologies are there now, and with the support of a forward-looking Government, we could ensure that leaders in those technologies were UK companies. We would therefore have not only a resilient network, but a network with local capability, because I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no UK capability or UK vendor in this area right now. That is what I hope to see from the Government. Network diversification should be a fantastic opportunity to support innovative start-ups around the country.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree it is a pity that the Government got rid of the industrial strategy group that helped to advise on these expert issues?

Chi Onwurah: As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and as a telecoms engineer, it has been sad to see the lack of an industrial strategy for our telecommunications capability, which strengthens our UK capability. We have excellent engineers and excellent research. We should be leading in future telecommunications  capability, and an industrial strategy would ensure that was the case. It would also help collaboration with our allies. For example, the US does not have a vendor that can provide our 5G networks at the moment, and collaboration with our allies and an industrial strategy or plan could make such a difference globally and locally to our security and economic strength.

Iain Duncan Smith: Is the main point in all of this that this was not a market failure? Although an industrial strategy is important, in reality this is a national security failure. Huawei has undercut the market progressively for nearly 15 years through its subsidies, breaking every rule and driving every company out of business. The single biggest problem we face is having a proper functioning market that requires those involved in it to obey the rules. China does not, and everyone has paid lip service to that. Is that the real problem?

Chi Onwurah: I both agree and disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree totally that national security is not a function of the market, and the fact that we have a network that is not secure is not a market failure but a failure of government and foresight. China had an industrial strategy. That is why it has a vendor in all the networks across the world—

Iain Duncan Smith: To break the rules—

Chi Onwurah: Not to break the rules, but to work with other nations whose values we share, and in the long term to develop and support companies in this area.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend also agree that this did not come as a great shock to the Government? It was all laid out in the 2013 Intelligence and Security Committee report on critical national infrastructure, but nothing has been done since then.

Chi Onwurah: My right hon. Friend, as always, makes a really good point. That is where an industrial strategy would have come in. It was predicted and we had time to build up alternatives. To go from having Huawei as one vendor among others that had small parts of our network, to our network being so dependent on it, took time. We could have used that time better to secure our networks and our own capability. The Government are bodging this. They are leaving it to the market when national security is not a market function. Labour has consistently welcomed the Bill, but it is only a small step towards achieving a truly secure and robust telecommunications network. In 2010 the Tories inherited a secure, competitive and world-leading network. It is now insecure, uncompetitive and bumping along the bottom. The Government have wasted 11 years, with huge delays in the second and third-generation fixed broadband roll-out, pushing us down the bottom of the OECD tables. Telecommunications are essential to our national security and economy, and we hope the Government will take this opportunity to recognise that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am introducing a four-minute limit. There is hardly any time in this debate, and the votes will come no later than 9.37 pm. If people can be even pithier than four minutes that would be helpful.

Julian Knight: First, I must declare that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on new and advanced technologies.
I have here—switched to silent, I hasten to add—my mobile phone, on which are all my apps. Just going through them gives us an idea of the flood of information about me that is now carried through telecommunication networks. I have my train app, my Uber app, my Bolt app and my Uber Eats app—as you can see from my waistline, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have my bank accounts. I have my Tesco Clubcard. I have my Signal and my WhatsApp. I have my Instagram. I have my tickets for sporting events. I have my apps for parking and for booking restaurants, and apps to read newspapers. I have apps for—heaven forbid—my golf handicap; unfortunately, it is really high. I also have my bet365 app—the less said about that, the better. I have apps for health and I have apps for my mental health.
In short, someone can see from my phone where I eat, what I spend, who I associate with, where I have been, where I am going to be, my financial status, my credit worthiness, whether I am an insurance risk, even whether I like a curry or a pizza—or, frankly, whether I am happy or sad.
Much of this is truly wonderful, and we have seen through the pandemic how technology has advanced 10 years in just 18 months. But you ain’t seen nothing yet, Mr Deputy Speaker. I expect that we will have the use of biometrics, the linking of data, and artificial intelligence. This is more than the railroad of the 21st century; it is redefining the way we interact with one another, and how the state protects and interacts with us. You do not need an aircraft carrier if you can subvert telecommunications. It is imperative that the Government ensure that our national security is not breached in this way. That must be woven into the plan that we have for the future of data and the interaction between the state and the individual. This Bill is the start of that process, although admittedly it is very late in the day, after many false starts.
Moving on to the Lords amendments, I am pleased that the noble Lord Parkinson tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 in the other place on behalf of the Government. As new technologies emerge and security threats change, it is only right that Ministers have the ability to introduce new codes of practice to bring legislation up to date. However, through the application of the negative resolution procedure, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to provide parliamentary scrutiny to the new codes where necessary.
I have great sympathy with the thrust and intention of Lords amendments 4 and 5, although I wonder whether Lords amendment 5 is slightly gilding the lily. I would hope that any Government worth their salt would take very seriously the approach of our closest security partners, so I wonder whether that really needs to be in law at this stage. However, Lords amendment 4 on network diversification is very strong, and I am minded not to support the Government on it tonight. Frankly, I think it would advance things and set a really good marker in that respect.
This is absolutely necessary law. It is very late in the day, and it has been a very difficult process, but we must now focus on the fact that this is not the end but the very beginning of the way we underpin our society in terms of how we protect our data and our telecommunications.

Stephen Flynn: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), although now I am really interested to know whether he prefers a curry or a pizza. When I came into the debate, I did not expect that to be the topic of discussion.
I am very conscious of time, and I know that a number of people on the Back Benches would like to make contributions to this incredibly important debate. However, I will take the opportunity to set out the SNP’s views on Lords amendments 4 and 5 and, importantly, briefly to reflect on why we are in the situation that we are in. Actually, that kind of ties in to Lords amendment 5: it is because of the mess that the Government have created in relation to Huawei.
When I first came into the House—pre-pandemic, of course—one of the biggest issues being discussed was the situation with Huawei and the flip-flopping that the Government were doing. I respectfully suggest that, in relation to Lords amendment 5, it is almost akin to the fact that they have learned nothing. There is an opportunity before them to ensure that they work with key intelligence partners, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, to ascertain where the biggest threat sits. But rather than take cognisance of what has been said in the other place, they are simply saying that the plan, as they have it at this moment in time, is good enough. That, from my perspective, simply does not cut it, especially, as we have heard, when some £2 billion has already been wasted on this debacle, notwithstanding the economic impact of being so many years behind in the roll-out of 5G itself. That, in many senses, covers Lords amendment 5.
On Lords amendment 4 and diversification, I will not repeat the exact detail of the amendment because that was done so eloquently by the shadow Minister, but I was a little bit surprised at what the Minister said. If I got the scope of it correctly, she was saying that Lords amendment 4 is far too narrow and would make the Government’s life too difficult. However, the amendment did not seem to suggest that when I cast my eyes on it. In fact, if I read it correctly, in the other place the Government’s position was that the framework was already sufficient, so the Government do not even seem to have clarity between the other place and this place on their actual position. I do not think that that is necessarily a surprise, because they are just looking for a reason not to back an incredibly helpful amendment.
Those are the views of the SNP on the two more contentious amendments. I look forward to the Minister perhaps providing the clarity that the Government have not been able to provide so far. I also look forward to hearing what our esteemed Back Benchers have to say on these matters.

Julian Lewis: It is a pleasure to follow all the Back-Bench speeches so far.
I would like to blaze in capital letters what the Minister said:
“This is, first and foremost, a national security Bill.”
Something very similar was said when the National Security and Investment Bill—now the National Security and Investment Act 2021—was going through this House and the other place earlier this year. The Intelligence and Security Committee is, as it always has been, a non-partisan organisation. I will therefore be saying some things to please and, probably, to annoy both sides.
The Committee considered the five amendments at a recent meeting. We agreed that the entirety of Lords amendments 1 to 3 was broadly beneficial. We looked at Lords amendment 5 and we understood the temptation to flag up the importance of the Five Eyes relationship. We agreed—it is interesting how closely our deliberations, without consultation, conformed to the views of the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight)—that it was, as he put it, a case of gilding the lily, because whenever a serious objection is raised on security grounds by one of the Five Eyes partners, we take that with the utmost seriousness. That leaves us with Lords amendment 4. For the life of us, we cannot understand why the Government are opposing it. We believe it would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and provide a valuable annual stocktake on the progress being made on the diversification strategy and how it is helping to improve national security. Therefore, like the Chairman of our parallel Committee, I will not be voting against Lords amendment 4 tonight.
Where does that leave us as a Committee in terms of the two Bills and the amendments thereto? You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there have been intense arguments both in this place and in the upper House about the failure of the Government to accept amendments that would allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to scrutinise closely the secret aspects that are inevitably involved in those two Bills. I will not digress on this both because I lack time and because you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would instantly call me to order. I will simply say, on ensuring that there is ISC scrutiny of the classified elements that follow from this legislation, that arguments have been advanced by the Government in the other place to say, “Well, the face of the Bill isn’t the place to do it.” We agree with that now; we are taking the Government at their word. Therefore, we have written to the National Security Adviser and asked him to take up the issue with the Prime Minister, so that the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC can be brought up to date to cater for the provisions of this Bill and the earlier Bill that should be part of our purview. That is what the Government promised in 2013 when the legislation was originally put through, for our Committee’s powers, and it is a promise that we expect them to keep.

Kevan Jones: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who took the Bill through Committee very ably. Sadly, he was a victim of the cull of competence in the last reshuffle, but his approach to the Bill was refreshing.
The Bill is important and, as a member of the ISC, I fully support it, but aspects of it need improving. Lords amendment 4 on the diversification strategy is vital. I was not reassured by the Minister telling us that this would be kept on track. When people try to give the impression that the issue of telecoms security suddenly hit us like a bolt out of the blue because of Huawei, I suggest that they read the 2013 ISC report on critical national infrastructure. What was going to happen was all laid out there, and nothing did. I think that without this annual stocktake, as the right hon. Member for  New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, there will be a tendency for future Governments to take their eye off the ball in terms of pushing forward the agenda that ensures that we are never again in a situation where we are beholden to, in this case, Huawei or any other vendor.
I have no problems with Lords amendments 1 to 3, but I think the Minister rather oversold this in saying that it is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to parliamentary scrutiny. I accept that to a limited degree as it pertains to the codes of practice, but as the right hon. Member for New Forest East outlined, there is an issue that should concern Members on both sides of the House with this Bill and the National Security and Investment Act, in that there are elements of security now in two Departments that will not be able to be scrutinised by any Committee other than the ISC. As he outlined, although we have tabled probing amendments here and in the other place, we have given the benefit of the doubt to the Government, because of reassurances that scrutiny will be forthcoming. However, I say to the Minister that I would like a commitment tonight that she will feed that point back, because without this, no other Committee will be able to deal with the secret aspects involved. I have spoken to members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, who are still trying to wheedle out of the Government their memorandum of understanding about what they can and cannot see, and that does not bode well. This is one thing that we will come back to, if it is not done now.
The ISC has so far been constructive and responsible in the way in which it has approached this issue. It is now in the hands of the Prime Minister to ensure that the memorandum of understanding is amended and is, as the Chair of the ISC said, in line with the Justice and Security Act 2013, which envisaged that we would have oversight if security went into other areas. Without that, these matters will lack the scrutiny that they rightly need.

Bob Stewart: I, too, speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. My comments will be short, because my time is limited, but many of the views that I will express have already been stated by other hon. Members.
As the House has heard, the ISC broadly supports the Bill, although it remains concerned about the Bill’s lack of a role for it in providing parliamentary oversight of parts of the legislation that Select Committees are unable to supervise. The ISC has made that point to the Government, but they do not accept it.
As a Committee, we want this legislation and will not push the issue, but we retain reservations about the matter not being part of the Bill. However, as the Chairman of the ISC—my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—and other hon. Members have said, we have written to the National Security Adviser to suggest that the matter be addressed in a revised edition of the Committee’s MOU, which comes from the Prime Minister. Otherwise, we consider that there will be gaps in the supervision available to Parliament—that is our main point.
The Committee fully supports the changes to clause 3 in Lords amendments 1 to 3 about codes of practice and the new wording after clause 23 in Lords amendment 4. With regard to Lords amendment 5 on Five Eyes review, we believe that the intelligence community will naturally  consider the views of Five Eyes partners as part of its reporting, so the new clause, although worthy, is not really necessary.

Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for your pithiness.

Jim Shannon: The Bill seeks to enhance security provisions that all Members of this House must recognise are much needed. Clear consensus has been achieved—it has been hard-fought—that cyber-attacks on the telecommunications infrastructure pose a significant threat to national security and that legislation is needed to strengthen the security framework. The Government and the Minister are endeavouring to protect the state and its citizens. This is an absolutely necessary law that will make a clear improvement, but more can and must happen.
I believe that the Bill is needed not only to safeguard this great nation from cyber-terrorism, both domestic and external, but to ensure that we can continue to attract jobs and investment from those who seek to utilise the skills and experience of our workforce. As I have said numerous times in this House, Northern Ireland is fast becoming the cyber-security centre of the world, with companies from Europe, America and elsewhere making use of our low business rates and our high skillset. To continue to attract that investment and those jobs, we must really be on top of our game; I believe that the Bill will play an important part in that. Could the Minister give some indication of her discussions with Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the Bill’s economic benefits for all regions, particularly Northern Ireland?
We all want to secure jobs, but we cannot allow any and all companies to have access to our networks. I believe that the protections in the Bill are imperative against those who may unscrupulously seek to carry out espionage on either a corporate or a national security level. Along with many others, I had concerns about the Huawei deal and its impact on the essential Five Eyes agreement; I was pleased by the decision that the Government ultimately made for all our security. There is a lesson to be learned and I trust that we have all learned it.
I agree that it is imperative that a clear and precise code of conduct is permitted, so I support the Government’s further amendment to ensure that a code of conduct is encompassing and far-reaching. That is right and proper, and I fully support it.

Andrew Rosindell: I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra.
The Five Eyes alliance is one of the most important strategic alliances that the UK shares. It is one of the world’s most comprehensive intelligence-sharing alliances, bringing together nations that have a strong bond forged through our shared history and values. The Government have recently taken a great stride towards strengthening our relationship with two of our Five Eyes partners, Australia and the United States, through the AUKUS agreement. I believe that Lords amendment 5 would further strengthen our ties with those great allies and ensure that we look to the future of the security and resilience of our telecommunications network.
Telecommunications networks have become the foundation of our economy, allowing business, Government and communities to connect and share information. This ability to connect and communicate is now a fundamental part of the way in which our society operates. Only last year, however, the Government were still considering using the services of a Chinese company, Huawei, to manage the introduction of 5G technology in our country. That was deeply worrying, owing to the complete subservience of the Chinese tech companies to the Chinese Communist party. The unholy alliance of these so-called private companies and an authoritarian Government who have no respect for basic values such as privacy has allowed the CCP to increase internal surveillance to a level never seen before. We would be foolish to think that the CCP would not have used its access to the information accumulated by Huawei through its involvement in our 5G roll-out, given the immense levels of intelligence that it would have been able to gain from that.
This debacle of Huawei shows that we must be extremely careful in protecting the security of our vital infrastructure. Letting companies that are so intertwined with a malign Government manage the implementation of our telecommunications systems would be no less than an act of national self-harm. If one of our close strategic allies makes the decision to ban a telecommunications company from operating within its borders, it will have a good reason for doing so. Taking the time to consider the rationale for such decisions will cost us little, whereas I worry that not doing so could be catastrophic for our national security. I hope that this House will approve amendment 5, as it will send a clear message that technology companies that work against our national interest will not be allowed to operate in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s position.

Iain Duncan Smith: I will be brief, as much has been said already. However, I want to say a bit to my hon. Friend the Minister about Lords amendment 4. I also, by the way, want to recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is no longer a Minister but who was in charge of much of the Bill’s passage. I thought that he did an excellent job. It is a very good Bill which is long overdue, and there is much to praise in it.
I think that Lords amendments 4 and 5 are worthy of a little more assessment. Lords amendment 4 does have merits, because it recognises that there is a real problem about diversification. The point that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier was not an argument against any kind of strategic review or industrial policies; it was the argument that if a nation is in a sense rogue, in terms of its ability to stay within the market, and subsidises companies deliberately for strategic effect, that is why the number of companies will fall from 15 to three in the free world, which is what happened in this case. I think the amendment is about the need to recognise the fact that diversification, if not pursued deliberately, will lead us into the hands of a country like China, which then forces us eventually to have only one vendor on price, because that country has subsidised it.
As for Lords amendment 5, I heard the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security  Committee, but I would not regard this as “gilding the lily”. I do not much like lilies and I think they could do with a bit of gilding, but I think that this is more a case of locked doors, and if the amendment is about putting an extra door into the security panoply, I think it is important. I will be brief, but last year, along with many others, I had very strong arguments with the Government about Huawei, and we were disregarded, disregarded, disregarded. The Government even led out all the great security experts who told them that they could control everything, saying, “Don’t worry, we can manage the risk”—until it finally became apparent to them that they could not. We faced that at the time. Other Five Eyes members had already said that this was not on, but we seemed to disregard their views. So I simply say that this is not about gilding the lily; it is about reminding the Government that they must abide by these provisions.
I should also make the point that there are many other companies to which we should be giving real consideration right now, and which are being looked at and banned by the Five Eyes—such as Hikvision and ByteDance—and I urge the Government to think again about those as well.

Matt Warman: I want to thank the various Members who have paid tribute to my small role in this Bill. I say simply to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that I regard all reshuffles as an upgrade, so I welcome the Minister to her place. I mean that sincerely. I would also like to pay tribute to the officials—some of whom are in the Box today—who do not get enough credit for getting the Bill to the place that it is in. Ultimately, this is the Bill that will remove Huawei from our 5G network, and that is something that we should all welcome. It addresses a number of the issues that I raised and discussed robustly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, during the process of getting the Bill to this point.
Of the two amendments, one is about scrutiny of the Government’s position on telecommunications and on this Bill in particular. Ultimately, if there is one thing that this Bill has not been short of, it is scrutiny, whether in Westminster Hall or in this place or at oral questions. The Minister is also right to say that it will not be short of scrutiny in the future. I am sure that even the right hon. Member for North Durham will continue to be persistent in his desire to see telecommunications scrutinised more. So while I sympathise with the desire to put things on the face of the Bill, I have faith in this place and even in the Opposition to get on with scrutinising the Government. I know that the Intelligence and Security Committee will also continue to push its bid to scrutinise the Government even further than it currently does.
Secondly, on the position of the Five Eyes partners, those of us who have seen up close in Government just how hard the National Cyber Security Centre and the agencies work with our Five Eyes partners all know that the position that both Select Committees have come to is the right one, not only because it gilds the lily but because it acknowledges that our agencies do not look solely to the Five Eyes and that they look around the world in a way that is enviable, deep and broad. That  gives us the benefit of huge expertise across the piece. In the case of both these amendments, at the risk of sounding as though I am still taking the role of a Minister, I do not believe that either of them is required. This is because I have faith in this place and in our agencies. I hope that the Bill will bolster our national security, and that it will do so without the benefit of these amendments.

Nusrat Ghani: I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 5, which was championed in the other place by my Friend, Lord Alton and which focuses on the Five Eyes partnership. The Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary, but I would argue that if she were to accept it, it would provide a safety net. Last year, the Government were forced into committing to removing Huawei equipment from the UK’s 5G network, which followed on from a ban by the US and Australian Governments. We had even found ourselves in a situation in which one of our closest allies publicly threatened to stop intelligence sharing with us for the first time in our 75-year partnership. I would argue that this amendment would ensure that we did not find ourselves in a similar place again.
Let me give the House an example. Despite being blacklisted by our closest ally for its ongoing links to the ongoing genocide in the Xinjiang, and a Chinese intelligence law which means that the company can not only harvest data but provide data back to the Chinese state, the surveillance company Hikvision continues to be embedded in councils, hospitals and city infrastructure up and down this country. Earlier this year, I led a Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report, “Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains”, which also looked at data harvesting. I was deeply unimpressed with Hikvision’s response, and I want to put on record that I thoroughly support the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recent recommendation that the Government should forbid Hikvision from operating in the UK. My Select Committee continues its work on Xinjiang, and I look forward to meeting TikTok in the near future.
The amendment would provide a fantastic safety net to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a difficult relationship with our Five Eyes partners again. Why would we want to risk that? I urge the Minister to recognise the motivation behind the amendment, which would enable trust and deepen our intelligence sharing alliances with our closest partners as well as ensuring security at home. I also urge the Minister, if she has the time, to read the “Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains” report, and in particular to focus on article 7 of China’s national intelligence law, which states that any company that is registered in China has to provide data to the Chinese Communist party on demand, and also to deny to any other state that it is doing so.

Julia Lopez: With the leave of the House, I close this debate by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for making a number of extremely important points about national security. I am keen to address those not only now, in this legislation, but in the future, through horizon scanning for some of the challenges that are coming up.
I appreciate that some of the trust in the system has been undermined by the Huawei situation, and I am sympathetic to concerns raised about reporting,  diversification and resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is absolutely right that this legislation is just one part of a wider security framework. The development of 5G and full-fibre networks brings new security challenges, which we must be prepared for.
This legislation sets up a strong regime for handling and removing high-risk vendors from our public networks, but it is just the start. Specific security measures will be set out in secondary legislation; there will be a lot of work to do in the next stage as we draw up that legislation, and we will be publishing a code of practice explaining the technical guidance that providers can follow to comply with legal duties.
The final secondary legislation and code will be agreed through public consultation, which I hope will provide another opportunity for hon. Members who have concerns in this area to provide adequate scrutiny. I am alive to some of those concerns, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) has outlined, MPs and Peers have had multiple chances to scrutinise and feed back on our diversification strategy, and we will continue to report on developments.

Bob Stewart: I remind the Minister that the members of the ISC present tonight have written to the national security adviser on the revision of the memorandum of understanding from the Prime Minister to the ISC. We really do expect some changes to that, so that we can close the gap on supervision of things that other Select Committees cannot look at.

Julia Lopez: I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. This issue has been raised throughout the passage of the Bill; I am alive to those concerns from the ISC, which bring particular expertise and scrutiny on matters on which others cannot, by virtue of their security importance. I understand that the ISC’s Chair has written to the Cabinet Office on the matters raised, but I wish to engage with the Committee on its important work. I believe I may—
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83G).
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 161.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Julia Lopez.)

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 161.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 4 and 5.
That Julia Lopez, Heather Wheeler, Lia Nici, Duncan Baker, Chi Onwurah, Jessica Morden and Stephen Flynn be members of the Committee.
That Julia Lopez be the Chair of the Committee.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

HGV Driving Licences

Nigel Evans: For the convenience of the House, motions 6 and 7 on road traffic will be debated together.

Trudy Harrison: I beg to move,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 16 September, be approved.

Nigel Evans: With this we shall consider the following motion:
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.

Trudy Harrison: Together with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021, which follows the negative procedure, these statutory instruments are part of several ways that the Government are seeking to address the heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. The haulage sector has been experiencing an acute shortage of HGV drivers worldwide for some time. This has been further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic having suspended driver testing for much of last year, meaning that the shortage increased further. The shortage affects not only the supplies of fresh food, but fuel, medicines and medical equipment across Great Britain. I am therefore grateful that this debate could be held at the earliest opportunity available, so that we can address this issue as a priority.
The overall aim of the regulations is to increase the number of HGV drivers in Great Britain by increasing the number of test slots available to drivers wishing to pass an HGV driving test, while maintaining road safety standards for any changes made to the driver licence testing regime. The intention of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 is to remove the need for driver licence category B+E tests, which are required for car drivers who wish to tow a heavy trailer. Driver examiners have limited test availability, and this legislation will free up driver examiner time and mean that it can be reallocated to conduct HGV tests instead. This should provide additional availability of tests for potential HGV and bus drivers to help lessen the driver shortage. For car drivers, the change in legislation will mean that they will be able to tow a heavy trailer up to 3,500 kg automatically once they hold a full category B licence.

Karin Smyth: What assessment has the Minister made of whether the changes will in fact deliver the additional capacity for HGV drivers that she said should happen? What assessment has actually been made?

Trudy Harrison: The removal of tests will free up 30,000 opportunities, and the removal of staging will free up 10,800 opportunities. For car drivers, the change in legislation will mean that they will be able to tow a heavy trailer automatically once they hold a full category B licence. Theory and practical training will continue to be recommended to help maintain driver safety on the roads, which is of the utmost importance.
An accreditation scheme is being developed with help from the trailer industry and training providers. This accreditation scheme will provide voluntary training opportunities for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer of any size for either recreational or business use. The scheme is planned to launch early next year and will focus on specific driver needs when towing different types of trailers through the provision of specialised modules. We are already working with trainers and those in leisure and business to develop the training package and, together with these groups and the police, we will identify the additional data needed to monitor towing standards effectively.
The purpose of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 is to streamline the HGV and bus driving licence regime by removing the staging requirement for a separate heavy trailer test for provisional vocational licence holders. This will mean that once car drivers have applied for and been granted the relevant provisional entitlement to drive an HGV or bus, they can then take a full HGV or bus driving test that includes towing a heavy trailer without first having to pass the rigid HGV or bus test stage. Road safety standards will be maintained as, in order to obtain this full licence, drivers must still prove competency in all required areas to pass the test. There is no change in the test standards. Together, these measures are expected to free up 3,300 additional test appointments every month, thereby helping to reduce the acute shortage of approximately 39,000 heavy goods vehicle drivers we were experiencing as of June 2021.
The SIs support the streamlining of testing to increase the number of HGV tests taking place. Keeping our roads safe is of paramount importance, and we will monitor and take action if needed, if our roads become less safe. The SIs are just one of the 28 interventions the Government are putting in place to tackle this issue and to help reduce the strain on our national supply chains.

Sam Tarry: The ongoing driver shortage is having a profound impact on businesses and consumers, yet the Government have fallen well short in their effort to boost driver recruitment. The shortages that are crippling our economy and supply chains could lead to disruption and misery for millions in the upcoming Christmas period.
We have a mounting driving test backlog, and it is clear that only the Opposition and our proposals will take the necessary steps to address the issue and invest in upskilling UK workers. It is vital to take the urgent action that is required to boost driver recruitment and get our country moving again to support businesses after a challenging two years. That means putting in place mechanisms to encourage more people to take up jobs in the industry and to make it a more attractive place to work through improvements in conditions and facilities.
The driver shortage demands urgent action, which is glaringly lacking from the Government. Instead of expanding testing capacity through examiner recruitment, increasing facilities and resolving outstanding industrial action, they are taking the short-sighted and short-term measure of diluting testing requirements and endangering all road users in the process.
No one on this side of the House will deny that the shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers is an international problem, but it has been particularly acute in the UK due to the Government’s incompetence. To put it into context, we are facing a shortage of 90,000 drivers, which is double the number required in Germany and France and six times the figure facing Italy and Spain. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is currently conducting only 3,000 vocational driving tests a week, which means it would take months to fill the huge shortage of HGV drivers.
Instead of expanding testing capacity, the Government’s answer to the crisis is to increase the legal working hours of HGV drivers, endangering their lives and those of other road users due to an inability to operate safely if they are exhausted. They are already working too many hours on too little pay. The Government should urgently set out plans to improve conditions and facilities in the HGV industry to make it more attractive to a new and more diverse generation of drivers, as well as working with the industry and workers to retain existing staff by resetting pay, terms and conditions.
It is staggering that the Government are not doing all they can to address the crisis, given its significance for our economy’s success. If it was not enough to make UK roads more hazardous, the Government have announced regulatory changes to driving tests that will apparently speed up recruitment. That is all well and good, but when it involves removing off-road manoeuvres and rigid lorry practical tests from the testing obligations for new drivers, it has the potential to threaten road safety for drivers and users.
The way to turn the crisis around is not to dilute testing requirements and downskill HGV drivers, especially as there will be more vehicles on our roads that have not reached the standards that they are currently expected to meet. Will the Minister therefore tell the House what the safety implications will be of the decision to dilute testing requirements? Can she assure all those who use our roads that measures are being taken to recruit more instructors and expand the capacity of existing testing facilities—positive measures that would help to boost driver numbers and would be welcomed on both sides of the House?
It is a further concern that the measures will be made permanent, rather than being a temporary fix until the driver shortage and supply chain crisis have been resolved. The statutory instruments provide for three-yearly reviews before moving to five-year checks, but they do not mandate the collection of any specific safety data to inform those reviews, which make them unlikely to be as carefully considered as they should be. I repeat that they do not require the collection of any specific safety data for the reviews, which is clearly not acceptable. The Opposition are clear that, unless it can be proved that the changes have not affected road safety, we want them to be temporary and reconsidered as soon as the driving test backlog and driver shortages have improved.
The Government also need to address the cost of funding the training and tests of prospective HGV drivers. The ones I have spoken to say that the costs are too high and often unaffordable. We need to have a   conversation with the Department for Education about how HGV training could benefit from some of the measures that help other students to access courses.
All of this is happening at a time when the supply chain crisis risks spiralling out of control, so I urge the Government to provide greater clarity on the steps they are taking to address this crisis in food supply chains specifically. In particular, I would like to know whether measures will be reintroduced to suspend competition laws for supermarkets.
If the Secretary of State needs ideas for how his Government can bolster the number of HGV drivers and reverse the current downward trend, he could do far worse than listen to the Opposition. To us it is abundantly clear that, in the same way as for the covid crisis, a dedicated Minister must be appointed for this latest crisis. That Minister should hold an emergency summit bringing together all those who can help overcome this current impasse, including the road haulage industry, training providers, affected business groups and transport unions.
Industry associations such as the Road Haulage Association have understandably been critical of the Government’s proposals because, like many, they have not been properly consulted. The Government must also sit down with the Migration Advisory Committee to assess the extent of the skills shortage in this sector and identify how this can be recognised in the immigration points system. The fact that neither of these have so far happened weeks into this crisis is nothing short of a dereliction of duty and shows how detached from reality this Government are from the needs of our country.
When urgent action was required, time and again this Government have either dragged their feet or run out of ideas altogether. As long ago as July, the shadow Transport Secretary, the shadow Transport Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary all wrote to their counterparts to warn that the measures the Government had taken were not enough to address the scale of the crisis. Despite this, the Government continued with their short-termist approach and the crisis has scaled new heights, further compromising the safety of already exhausted drivers, increasing their working hours and putting road users in danger by diluting testing requirements for new drivers. Because of Government inaction, this crisis is now almost certain to continue well beyond the end of this year, ruining Christmas for so many.
As I have already made clear, the Government must do all they can to reverse the HGV driver shortage and the related supply chain crisis, but they cannot do so by diluting tests and downskilling drivers, increasing their hours operating dangerous machinery and vehicles, and endangering all of those who rely on UK roads in the process. Instead, we must see positive changes such as investing in more examiners, expanding and improving facilities, and making any changes temporary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made clear in the summer:
“These measures just kick the can down the road for another year. This crisis is affecting businesses and consumers now, and the Government needs to understand that.”
But we are determined to ensure that this crisis does not continue for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Richard Fuller: I commend both my hon. Friend the Minister for proposing some measures, and the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for asking some very serious and sensible questions about some of the issues, and I do hope that the Minister will respond to a couple of those. I should mention that I am a member of the all-party group on trailer and towing safety. Its chair, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), is here, and she may be speaking later.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It is interesting that the first arises from a constituent coming to see me at one of my constituency surgeries, which I think points out the importance of our being able to meet our constituents. Driving is a task that has always been quite difficult for me, so driver safety issues have always been key in my mind. Although I am not too familiar with heavy goods vehicles, it seems to me that there must be a substantial difference between a rigid HGV and one with a trailer, and that the driving safety requirements of the two should be significantly different. When my constituent came to see me, he showed me the reversing test for one of these vehicles and how much more complicated it is for a trailer compared with a rigid vehicle.
My first question to the Minister, echoing what the shadow spokesperson said, is: what assessment has been made by the Government of the safety difference between those two types of vehicle? We are making quite a significant change by not requiring people who have had training on rigid HGVs to go forward to training on one with a trailer, allowing people to go straight from being able to drive to car to being able to use an HGV with a trailer. What safety assessment was made not just in the consultation, but separately by the Department?
May I also ask about the availability of spaces for testing? Although increasing capacity may be an issue, and we hear numbers bandied around, both in this debate and before, about how many drivers we are short—I think the range goes from 20,000 to 90,000—nobody actually knows what the shortage is or how long it will last. That is why the Government are right to come up with a range of policies, including those proposed today. Increasing capacity is not the same as clearing the backlog because where we have that capacity is just as important as how much capacity we have. Again, I have anecdotal evidence from my constituent—I would be interested to know about this from the Minister—that local facilities have a surplus of spaces available for tests. What assessment has my hon. Friend made about where capacity shortages are? Is there a geographic understanding of where those spaces might be, and of where they might be required?
Finally, let me reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry). It looks strange that this change will take place for three years, rather than for six months or 12 months. It looks like trying to achieve a regulatory change not quite through the back door, but without saying that we are trying to make such a change. It would be reassuring if the Minister provided some response on her and the Department’s intentions on that matter.

Gavin Newlands: The Government have been warned for years and years about the shortage of HGV drivers, yet the speed of their reaction to that issue could best be described as glacial—having recently seen how quickly glaciers move, that probably gives the Government too much credit. The situation we face is of our own making. It is a combination of the industry not moving with the times quickly enough, of take-home pay being diluted in real terms when compared with other sectors, often driven by cost demands from the big supermarkets, and of this Government’s completely deaf ear and sneering cynicism about the scale of the problem facing our supply chain—problems that were clear to everyone else.
This problem is long-standing. The introduction of the IR35 was a contributory factor, covid will have had a sporadic impact, as it has on all sectors, and the way that many supermarkets and distribution hubs treat drivers going about their jobs is pretty shameful. However, even the dogs on the street can see that the Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and caused this crisis, so it is incumbent on this Government to fix it.
The Scottish National party has been warning about this situation for years. Well over five years ago my predecessors as transport spokesperson, my hon. Friends the Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) warned about the impact of Brexit, given that EU drivers were papering over the ever-widening cracks. They also mentioned the cost of HGV driver training and testing, and Government support to get people into that industry. I accept that the Government recently acted on that issue, with the £3,000 incentive payment for hiring new apprentice drivers, and that must be extended for at least—at least—another 12 months.
I have asked Ministers about this issue time and again. Indeed, back in June I wrote to the Secretary of State to urge immediate action to head off a crisis, and suggested that he would have to make contingency plans such as asking the armed forces to step in and help. The reply I received focused on apprenticeships, perhaps not quite getting the urgency of the coming situation. Despite the Government’s dismissive response, they did in fact have to ask the forces to assist and deliver fuel to forecourts across the country.

Jim Shannon: One thing that perhaps has not been done, which perhaps the Minister could follow up, involves coaxing those who have gained their HGV licence through being members of the Territorial Army or the full-time forces, out of retirement and into taking up the position of HGV drivers. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that is something the Government have not pursued, but that they could benefit from?

Gavin Newlands: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; it is good to see him here at his usual time on a Monday evening. He makes a very good point. All options should be explored. I know that a letter was sent by the Government, supported by the Road Haulage Association and Logistics UK, to a great many drivers. I am not sure whether the drivers he mentions were on the address list, but that is certainly something that the Government should strongly consider.
So what do we get? Some short-term visas, far too little and far too late, and on terms that have not exactly been a big draw for EU drivers; a welcome announcement, it must be said, on investment in driver facilities, but one that just happens to be years too late; and the potentially permanent changes before us this evening to fix a temporary problem, which have a great many people concerned about road safety.
Despite all the UK Government’s protestations to the contrary, the end of freedom of movement is the single biggest cause of the situation that we currently face. The Conservative party chair, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), said recently that a “relatively limited” number of EU drivers were applying for jobs, with about 300 applications received and “just over 20”—I presume that means 21—fully processed. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm the latest figures on that scheme. It is no wonder that EU drivers are not interested, with the Government initially announcing the scheme end point as Christmas eve, and in a tone that signalled that EU workers were still not welcome, seemingly forgetting that it was us who were desperate for help.
If disruption is to be minimised and the economy provided with greater certainty, drivers must be added to the shortage occupation list and this derisory short-term visa must be extended to at least 12 months. If we are honest, a two-year visa is probably necessary, given the time it will take to get the required drivers trained, passed and given the appropriate experience.
Let me turn to some of the specifics of the changes that the Government are proposing tonight to address the shortage. On the first motion, the removal of the staging between the class 2 driving test and the class 1 articulated test has been welcomed by much of the industry. I say “much” because there is some concern that, for some drivers, the process may still be a little rushed.
Delegating the testing of the reversing manoeuvre is also a concern for many. Brian Kenny from the RHA said:
“According to HSE, there’s about seven people knocked down and killed in yards each year with vehicles reversing. I think it is a step back. More than one person is one too many, as far as we’re concerned. Going forward on the roads should be assessed and should be tested. It’s equally important to test properly how an individual reverses and manoeuvres off the road.”
Andrew Malcolm of Scotland’s largest logistics company, the Malcolm Group, whom I met just last week, told the BBC:
“In principle, I can understand what they’ve done, to try to unlock test dates. However, I am seriously concerned about the safety aspect. I think they’ve cut far too much out the process of the test–that’s my biggest worry.”
Baroness Vere told me at the Transport Committee:
“We have to note that as we are reviewing all these we have to have safety absolutely at the top of our minds, and we must do whatever we can to make sure that there is no diminution in road safety.”
I ask the Minister to take note of the real concerns outlined by many and the comments of Baroness Vere, and to commit to reviewing the impact of this change in the short term and coming back to the House to report on both the positives—the number of extra drivers that  have managed to go through the system as a result—and the impact on road safety, such as the incidence of accidents. As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) said, if the Government could publish some of the criteria that will be used in reviewing this change after three and five years, that would be most useful to the House in holding the Government to account on this issue.
However, the second motion, on the removal of the car trailer test, is more troubling and concerns most of the industry. Put simply, there was a good reason that the tests were introduced in the first place. To allow anyone who has passed the regular driving test to tow a 3.5-tonne trailer, about two and a half times the weight of an average car, seems to be to be asking for trouble.
I agree with the RHA when it says that trailer use requires a special set of skills that are best instilled by a training and testing process. I know, because I have been told many times by the Secretary of State and other Ministers, that the Government will encourage drivers to take training, but the truth is that the vast majority of drivers will not undertake proper training, given that they will tow only occasionally. I would prefer that the DVSA continues to test, but as a temporary measure I back the Road Haulage Association’s proposal to delegate the testing to a DVSA-authorised trainer, in a similar fashion to the proposal to delegate the HGV manoeuvring test or, currently, MOTs. With the appropriate safeguards in place, road safety can be protected rather than abandoned.
The other unintended—I hope—consequence of the decision is to make parts of the driver training sector completely obsolete, largely without warning. I wrote to the Secretary of State back in September on behalf of a constituent whose business disappeared overnight when the changes were announced. I told him that my constituent had recently invested £30,000 for a vehicle, £4,500 for a trailer, and—to me, this is the worst of all—£6,000 from a covid support loan that the Government encouraged him to take before swiping the rug from under his feet! The letter he received in response was essentially silent on the impact on the sector and on any support that my constituent, and anybody like him, could access. I asked the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box and Baroness Vere at the Transport Committee about compensation for those affected, but nothing was forthcoming. They both spoke of the hope to have an industry-led accreditation scheme, but, as I said, the vast majority of drivers simply will not take any non-statutory training. I appreciate that we are not talking about tens of thousands of people, but the Government have essentially closed viable businesses and surely they must meet their obligation to those people.
To conclude, I would like to amplify a point made by a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who highlighted the clear inconsistencies of this Government on this issue and on wider road safety decision making. They would not extend theory test validity, despite the inability of many of my constituents to take theory tests, because of the large backlog in Scotland, because of a supposed risk to road safety in theory, and because it would require further legislation. However, they are now happy to rush through legislation to terminate B+E testing, a decision which will increase actual road risk and have a   disastrous impact on the training industry. It is clear that the Government must act, but the time to act was years ago when the industry and many of us in this place warned about the repercussions of Brexit combined with inaction. Instead, that inaction has led to the empty shelves which are now commonplace across the country and to these panic measures before us, which compromise road safety for all of us.

Karin Smyth: I want to speak to the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
I rise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety. For more than four years, we have worked across the House to make roads safer for our constituents through consideration of the gaps in regulation and enforcement of towing and trailer safety. I believe we built a good consensus that showed the very best of Parliament. We were making advances in a non-partisan way, the result of Ministers and Back-Bench MPs working together across party lines to arrive at a settled and sensible position that improvements in this area were desperately needed. In that spirit, I thank former Ministers for their support: the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) who is in his place, and the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). They each showed a desire to fix an endemic problem around trailer safety and a genuine commitment to deliver on a promise to one particular family in my constituency.
I first met Donna and Scott Hussey in 2016, months after my election as Member of Parliament for Bristol South. Two years previously, their three-year-old son Freddie was killed in the most tragic of circumstances when a two-tonne trailer came loose from a vehicle in Bedminster, driven by somebody who had been trained and who was towing for business. From the first time I met the Hussey family, it was all too evident that the loss of Freddie had affected them in ways I could not imagine. In the four years since, it has been a privilege to campaign alongside them, and many other families and supporters, on the little-known or cared-for issue of towing and trailer safety, to put it centre stage at the Department for Transport, Highways England and the DVSA, and with it, the hundreds of associated accidents and incidents that occur in this area every year.
We have hosted Ministers and experts. We have held summits and awareness events. We have taken to the newspapers and the airwaves. We launched the all-party group. At the inaugural meeting of that group, the National Towing Working Group, chaired by Highways England, launched its first ever safety framework. In the House of Lords, we defied the odds to secure an amendment, by one vote, to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which required the Government to collect data on trailer-related incidents and produce a statutory report, the safety report I have brought with me this evening. Meanwhile, the DVSA has also launched the “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign to help raise awareness among drivers and to honour Freddie’s name. On the roads, we made a real difference, working with the National Trailer & Towing Association to promote free roadside safety checks.
All of that makes the situation in which we found ourselves today abjectly terrible. The proposals from the Government take a wrecking ball to the advances that we have made. It is unconscionable and totally unfathomable. The Minister has made a series of unsubstantiated claims this evening. These proposals have come from nowhere, without any respect or acknowledgement of the work that has been done. They are an insult to the campaigners, who have worked so hard. It is a shoddy parliamentary practice—it really is a bitter blow today.
In the statutory report—a Government report—we have numerous paragraphs stating what needs to happen to the B+E tests around the driver safety issue. Paragraph 5.26 states:
“In order to tow heavier trailers…the driver must undertake an additional…test… Given that a range of stakeholders and data sources pinpoint driver error as a key factor in towing incidents, it is sensible to consider improvements to this test.”
Paragraph 5.27 states:
“DVSA will be considering revisions and improvements to the B+E safety questions, which form part of the practical test, over coming months. These will seek to address issues which have been raised during this report”—
the Government’s report.
Paragraph 5.28 states that the
“DVSA will consider ways to promote the B+E syllabus in the national driving standard, especially to increase awareness of safety issues among new and learner drivers and those who may only tow rarely”—
the other people who are being let tow vehicles out on our streets.
Paragraph 5.29 talks about changing the load that drivers can carry:
“DVSA will explore whether increases to this requirement, for example requiring a combination over 3.5 tonnes, would lead to tests being undertaken in a more representative vehicle combination”.
Again, that is about improvements. We were expecting to have improvements to the B+E test and it is truly astonishing to be here tonight talking about abolishing it.
When the House of Lords considered this statutory instrument, its report stated:
“These draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation.”
As Scott Hussey said to me last week, this makes absolutely no sense. As other Members have said this evening, this is not a temporary measure; it is a permanent change.
Our work on the APPG is based on the findings of the statutory report. We were looking at how safe trailers over 750 kg are based on the available data and then, on the basis of that assessment, we were looking at whether the mandatory testing and/or registration of trailers over 750 kg should be introduced.
The Department for Transport decided that the case for trailer registration and testing, hence the need to ensure that there is roadworthy-compliance, was not made. However, it always said that the level of compliance of some 50%—50% of these trailers are compliant—was a cause of concern.
Paragraph 5.1 of the report states:
“This report has presented an opportunity to consider trailer safety in a broad context, and to consider other interventions which may benefit towing and more general road safety”—
that is, more improvements.
Paragraph 5.2 states:
“Throughout this report, significant concerns have been raised about data availability and validity, the role of driver error in incidents, and ensuring that the current test regimes for drivers and vehicles are working correctly.”
It mentions an assessment of the current regime, without any talk of abolishing it.
We have been meeting over the past few years and collecting more data, working with the Department on roadside checks. The DVSA’s checks, which it has carried on through the pandemic—we are very grateful to those who have worked with us closely to make sure that we get evidence to look at the greater regulation of these trailers—all consistently show 50% non-compliance.
I met the Minister, the noble Baroness Vere, and I am grateful for her support, too. This Minister—and she has done this—will talk about continued working with regard to improving compliance, and she made a distinction between trailer compliance and driver behaviour. However, as I said, we are so concerned about these proposals because we never envisaged a situation where the test would be abolished. In an area where the Government have admitted their concern, namely the regulation and testing of trailers, they have made things worse by taking away the test requirement for drivers.
Let us look at a little of the detail of the Government’s proposals, because I do not think that Ministers are across it in any way, shape or form. The Government have not made a road safety impact assessment of this decision. I am not making this up: there is no road safety impact assessment of a decision that makes such a massive change to how drivers are trained. We are being asked to vote on a decision that has not been assessed, with ramifications that are literally a matter of life and death.
The Government’s explanatory memorandum states that there are
“around 1,000 accidents per year”
involving trailers, but statistics on the car and trailer driving test suggest a consistent current fail rate of 30%. In 2019-20, that was 8,575 people. Under the Government’s proposals, those people will be going out on our roads. It takes either immense stupidity or unbelievable indifference not to see that allowing people on our roads who cannot pass a test will drive up accidents.
Perhaps most offensively, the Government are proclaiming that the changes are needed to solve the HGV crisis—a case that they have not proven. It is not clear how the theoretical freeing up of the test will be used to do what the Government say. They have brought no evidence and no case that they have done that work. I dare any Minister to talk to any family who has been affected by the issue or to anyone who has lost somebody to an unsafe trailer or an unsafe driver.
The draft regulations will do nothing to help with the HGV crisis. In theory, at a stretch, they could free up some examiner capacity, but they will do nothing to reverse the backlog and gain new HGV drivers. Plenty of  alternatives have been put forward to help with the problem. The key question for the Government is whether it is worth risking lives to free up theoretical testing capacity.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have been inundated by messages from experts in the field telling me that the draft regulations will not do what the Government say—and the Government have brought no evidence that says otherwise. I have heard from trainers, drivers, testing centres, the insurance industry and the Road Haulage Association that they do not support this part of the package.
It is not just Members and industry experts who have grave concerns. Noble Lords have stated that they
“take the view that the House currently has insufficient information to enable proper assessment of the policy and the House may wish to press the Minister for more specific details about its wider safety implications.”
That is exactly what is happening tonight.
The Government’s proposals are not, in any shape or form, fit for purpose. They are dangerous. This is reckless. No-one thinks that it is a good idea, except some parts of the Government, and there is no safety assessment on which to base the decision. I hope that the Minister is listening carefully, that she will go back to the Department and that she will accept that I want to work positively, as I have done in the past four years. Along with the suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), with which I agree, I ask for four other issues to be taken into account.
First, the Government need to ensure that the remit of any voluntary accreditation scheme is widened to include all drivers and all trailers. The rules are now very complex and we need a much simpler licensing system.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister and the Government will continue to work with the APPG, not only on developments relating to towing and trailer safety, but on somehow assessing the effect of this legislative change. I do not know how we will do that, because there is no evidence for us to assess as a starting point and there is no way that the Government can assess the situation in three years’ time, but we will try to work with them.
Thirdly, I would like the Minister to provide an annual written statement setting out where driver error is cited in towing accidents. That would give us some reassurance that the Government will be in a position to undertake some sort of assessment in three years’ time, as they say they will.
Fourthly, I would like the Minister to give more specific details of the new proposed training scheme. What is its scope? How many people are expected to be trained? When will the scheme come on stream? How will it be communicated? How will it be evaluated? Let us not forget that these tests are already being abolished. We are here tonight supposedly to rubber-stamp something that has already been set in train, and there is nothing to replace it.
I will close with the words of my constituent Donna Hussey. She said:
“While it has always been difficult for us to comprehend what happened to Freddie, we made a promise to each other and to Freddie that we would do all we could to make sure this issue is given the serious consideration it deserves. If our hard work saves  one life, then it is worth it. No family should have to go through what we have been through. We are determined to see this through in memory of Freddie.”
We have been promised, time and again, measures that will be fit to serve the memory of Freddie and the bravery of his family. Rushed legislation is always bad legislation. There is still time for the Government to pause, to put aside the mish-mash that is before us and to make good their promises, and I would like to support them in trying somehow to reverse the terrible damage that this proposal is doing.

Sarah Olney: It is a privilege to follow the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth).
Like every other Member, I am obviously concerned about the HGV driver shortage and the very visible impact that it has been having in every community over recent months. We have seen the petrol shortages and empty shelves. One thing that concerns my constituents is that we are not entirely sure what the next impact will be. Is this a short-term issue, or will it continue for longer? I support the Government’s measures to attempt to resolve it, and I give them credit for what they have been able to do so far.
We know that the HGV shortage has arisen from a number of sources. We know, for example, that terms and conditions in the haulage industry have been declining relative to the general employment market over the last couple of decades. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) highlighted the issue of facilities, but this is also very much an issue of how our labour market has changed, partly as a result of the pandemic but also as a result of our leaving the European Union. I urge the Government to do more about making HGV driving an attractive occupation, certainly for new entrants to the market here in the UK—the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) made some interesting remarks about training, and I think that the Government should take that on board—but in the immediate term we need to make more visas available for HGV drivers from abroad to ensure that we no longer see the disrupted supply chains that we have seen over the last few months.
The Government are hoping to increase capacity for testing. I am concerned about that, because obviously we should not be attempting to resolve the HGV shortage at the expense of road safety for everyone—motorists, pedestrians and all our communities. As we all know, the impact of poorly driven HGVs can be devastating. I am anxious about all these proposals on road safety grounds, but while I have my anxieties about the proposed changes in the way in which tests are taken by drivers of articulated and rigid lorries, they are mitigated by the fact that those changes are targeted at a specific group of people who are already professional, experienced and have been driving lorries for a living.
However, I have a real problem with the abolition of the trailer towing test. I cannot say much more about this issue than has already been said so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bristol South, but my specific concern is that if we were to allow this change, and if that were to result in a significant increase in collisions or indeed deaths—as was also eloquently described by the constituent of the hon. Member for Bristol South—we  would have just let these regulations through without any opposition or anyone standing up to say that it was wrong.
We are talking about drivers of motor cars, which is obviously the majority of licence holders in this country, suddenly being able to drive trailers weighing 3,500 kg. That is a significant skill that takes time to acquire, and it requires proper instruction. I am very concerned by what the hon. Member for Bristol South has been saying about the need to increase the safety of trailers. That is well recognised, and it is something that she has campaigned on for a long time, so the proposal to abolish the measure feels like a move in the wrong direction. I am extremely anxious about the implications of that. Also, now that the barrier of the requirement to take a test is being removed, will we see a big expansion in the number of people wanting to tow trailers without proper instruction? What will that mean for road safety? I am extremely anxious about that, and I will oppose the statutory instruments this evening.

Trudy Harrison: I would like to thank hon. Members for their clear consideration of these instruments. I will respond in turn to the various points that have been raised.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), encouraged swift action, and we have certainly taken swift action. There is a shortage of 39,000 HGV drivers, according to my data, as a result of a variety of factors including a lack of diversity and poor quality facilities. That is why in the latest spending review we have committed £32.5 million to improving those facilities. On diversity, I am delighted to be able to inspire the House with the latest figures on vocational tests. They indicate that 56% of men are passing the tests and that 65% of women are doing so. That is an uplifting statistic on vocational heavy goods vehicle testing.
We are also working with the Department for Education and now have specific apprenticeship standards with a funding band of £7,000. That is really working. We are providing funding to Think Logistics and working with Career Ready. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested, we are already working with ex-military personnel and others, including people who have retired, to help to retrain them to work in the sector once again. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) questioned the timescales. Yes, we will review formally in three years and five years, but we will also review continually at every stage. Should there be a need for intervention, we will not hesitate to intervene where road safety is concerned.
I would really like to thank the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for her work on chairing the all-party parliamentary group, and I would be delighted to accept her invitation to come and speak to the group and to understand how we can make this work. I want to reassure her, her members and, most importantly, Freddie’s family that safety is of paramount importance to the Department, and quite rightly so. We will continue to support the Tow Safe for Freddie campaign, which the Department has supported in the past, because we take road safety very seriously. The UK has some of the safest roads in the world. Our support for the campaign will continue, and will draw attention to the importance of motorists doing safety checks whenever they are towing.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised a number of points. I have reached the grand old age of 45, and I passed my test before 1997. I can already tow a trailer of up to 750 kg—and indeed of up to 3,500 kg—because this change came in in 1997. Earlier this year, we ran a trailer safety campaign. It was timed to coincide with the lifting of the travel restrictions and the anticipated rise in the number of motorists towing caravans and trailers. It focused on encouraging motorists to do several basic checks before setting off on their journey, and highlighted the most common defects found by Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency examiners at the roadside. This reinforces the vital importance of maintaining trailers. I very much hope that people will take advantage of the Department’s encouragement of accreditation, which will also be provided.
We will shortly be publishing the impact assessment. It is being handled urgently and requires clearance, including by the Regulatory Policy Committee. We will keep those timescales to a minimum, but at the earliest we expect to be able to publish the assessment before the end of the year. We understand the concern that a full analysis has not yet been published, and we are working on it urgently. It was a case of balancing the need to take action quickly to address the driver shortage against the need to assimilate evidence and analyse it in full.
I hope the Chamber has found the debate informative. These instruments will play a critical part in ensuring we can rapidly address the acute heavy goods vehicle driver shortage that the haulage sector faces.

Gavin Newlands: Will the Minister give way?

Trudy Harrison: I am afraid I will not—I am nearly there. The instruments will free up driver examination time so that more HGV driving tests can be conducted. As has been seen in recent weeks, this is a matter that affects us all in our daily lives and action must be taken.
Question put.
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 17 November (Standing Order No. 41A).
Resolved,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.—(Trudy Harrison.)

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Green Gas Support Scheme Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Chiltern Railways

Felicity Buchan: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). The petition states:
That the petition of residents of the constituency of Cities of London and Westminster,
Declares that Chiltern Railways should upgrade their fleet to improve air quality; further that Marylebone is currently the only station in London which uses only diesel trains; and further that this usage greatly increases the noise and fumes in the area, much to the distress of local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the new franchise with Chiltern Rail requires that they convert their diesel trains to hybrids and end their lease on Class 68 locomotives.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002696]

UK Vaccination Strategy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Paul Beresford: After the earlier debate, I think I must make it absolutely clear that I occasionally practise dentistry, and that that is relevant to some of the points I am making today.
The previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, some considerable time ago, set out a change of direction for our health service that was based on prevention. Shortly after that, our health services—indeed, the world’s health services—were brutally assaulted by the arrival of covid from China.
I do not wish, in my few words this evening, to run a one-man inquiry into covid or into the way the UK or any other country handled it. I wish to push the Government to jump on the opportunity that I believe now exists because of the attitude of the majority of the population towards the preventive nature of vaccination.
Even detractors of the Government must give considerable credit for their willingness to invest in prospective vaccines and for the fact that there has been and still is a massive programme of preventive vaccination against covid and flu. I believe this is an opportunity for this country to continue to lead by building on the very best practice and collaboration fostered during the covid pandemic, to utilise vaccinations to save lives and to avoid damaging people. That would reduce the demand on our health services and would introduce a reduction in the financial demand on them.
We should be rapidly moving towards a broader and more robust, proactive approach to vaccination. That would protect us against future public health threats and against existing vaccine preventable diseases, especially respiratory diseases. I am looking to Health Ministers for clear leadership on vaccination to ensure that our health services continue to see it as a top priority. We must drive uptake across all ages, setting clear targets for adult vaccination, to bring it into line with our already great achievements on childhood vaccination. Such an approach could and should create an environment where the value of vaccines is recognised for our health and for our socioeconomic progress. It will keep our population out of our health services and keep them in their homes, in work and—dare I say—play, and keep our children safe and in education.
My first personal recognition of vaccination came with the polio epidemic that hit the world from to 1949 to 1952, sweeping through selective population centres and leaving as its most tragic sign children—sometimes permanently and sometimes temporarily—in wheelchairs, on crutches or in leg braces, and with deformed limbs. For children with polio in the late 1940s and early ‘50s, the disease caused paralysis in one in 1,000 cases among children aged five to nine. Polio also hit adults, and there were many deaths. Rescue came in the form of vaccination delivered in three doses of injections with stainless steel needles. My early childhood memory of the needles is that they looked like stainless steel 3-inch nails. They had to be thick enough to allow boiling water through them for sterilisation, and they were  re-sharpened on leather strops. Subsequent improvements brought about a liquid dose and, ultimately, an impregnated sugar cube.
In Western countries, if not almost worldwide, polio, along with smallpox and yellow fever, has been pushed mostly into history. Ideally, most, if not all, vaccination programmes should be administered to a high percentage —probably more than 95%—of the population. We have a very effective routine immunisation schedule—at least, it is effective, or fairly effective, for children, with vaccinations at eight, 12 and 16 weeks and 12 months. To my dismay, it appears that there has been some slippage in the routine childhood vaccinations for the under-fives. These children should receive 10 vaccines in total, which provide protection against such hideous diseases as tetanus, polio and meningitis, along with many others. I am not sure of the latest figures, but I am sure the Minister can update us on them. The latest I could find were from 2018-19 and they showed that the uptake of the first dose of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine had fallen to 90.3%. I believe that was the fifth year in a row that it had dropped. Although I accept that 90.3% is a high figure and that the percentage changes may seem small, we must recognise that the impact must not be underestimated, particularly if this turns out to be a trend. The UK has lost its World Health Organisation measles-free status, and this comes three years after the virus was eliminated in the United Kingdom. Astonishingly, during 2018 there were nearly 1,0000 cases, which is more than double what the figure was in 2016.
There are a complex number of reasons for that, but one of the biggest factors, as we have seen in the covid battle, has been the appalling misinformation on vaccine dangers on social media. That has certainly affected the uptake of covid vaccines. I still find it incomprehensible that some individuals I know of quite high intelligence are absorbed into believing this appalling misinformation. Some parents think that these childhood infections are trivial. Such a view needs to be vigorously countered at every opportunity; anyone seeing a child deformed by polio or with badly affected eyesight from measles really needs to wake up.
There have been some great successes. Recently data indicated that the HPV vaccination given to girls has bought about a dramatic drop in cervical cancer. Now that it is available to boys, I hope that we will see a similar dramatic drop in years to come in oral and head and neck cancers. Those cancers hit males more than females—I could warn a few fathers on that. HPV types 16 and 18 cause cervical cancer, penal cancer and between 60% and 80% of oral, head and neck cancers. The treatments for head and neck cancers—particularly surgical treatments—which of course I have seen, are debilitating and often leave hideous damage to the patients.
There has been a call for all hospital and care home staff to be vaccinated against covid. This is no different from the requirement when I became a dentist in this country: dentists and surgeons were required to have the BCG—Bacillus Calmette–Guérin—injection and vaccination before they were able to work. If I had an elderly relative who was to go into a care home and the choice was between two homes, both being identical except one had all staff vaccinated and the other did not, the choice would be obvious.
Much has to be done to promote vaccinations through hospitals, GPs and pharmacies, and by any other means that the Minister might think up. The promotion of and reminder about vaccines has already been undertaken with covid; this approach could and should be applied to all vaccines. New contact methods through the likes of the NHS app and social media should be used. I believe there are financial encouragements for GPs and pharmacies to promote such vaccinations—please, step that up. That approach could be applied to more than just covid and flu.
It appears to me that there is no promotion of vaccination against shingles among the over-70s. Anyone who has seen a patient who is over 70, 80 or 90 with shingles will know what a ghastly, debilitating condition it is. Perhaps when the Minister replies she can give the House some glimpse of the Government’s thinking, even if at this stage it is speculative. In future, we must use vaccinations extensively, because that is the goal of the original set-up for prevention.

Maggie Throup: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for bringing this important debate to the House and for his kind words about the success of the covid-19 vaccination programme. He speaks with a great deal of knowledge and personal experience, and I thank him for that.
I am going to talk about the covid vaccination programme as a great example of how well the UK has done in putting together a programme in a short time with great success, which I know my hon. Friend will want us to emulate in other areas. Our phenomenal covid vaccination programme continues at pace, with almost nine in 10 people aged 12 and over having now received at least one dose and more than 10 million people throughout the UK having had their booster and third vaccination dose.

Jim Shannon: I spoke to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and he suggested that I should ask the Minister this question. Those over 50 with a vulnerable disease or who are on a priority list have been told that they can get the booster vaccine; if someone happens to be aged 40 or 35 and is a type 1 diabetic in a vulnerable position, should they not also get the booster injection as a priority?

Maggie Throup: The criteria for who should receive a third dose are set by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We take its recommendations and roll things out according to that advice.
I thank each and every person who has come forward for their jab, as well as the tens of thousands of NHS staff and volunteers who have made this happen. Vaccines remain our biggest line of defence as we head into a challenging winter period. Vaccinated people are less likely to get seriously ill with covid-19, to be admitted to hospital or to die from it. There is also evidence that they are less likely to pass the virus on to others. Although the vaccine efficacy against severe disease remains high, we know that a small change can generate   a major shift in hospital admissions—for example, a change in efficacy from 95% to 90% would lead to the doubling of hospital admissions among those vaccinated.
Early results from Pfizer show that a booster jab restores protection to 95.6% against symptomatic infection. That is why we have launched the booster programme—to top up the immunity for those at increased risk of complications from covid-19 over the winter months, helping to keep people out of hospital, to reduce pressure on our NHS, and, as my hon. Friend has indicated, to ensure that there are fewer patients with covid-19 in need of an expensive hospital bed. The UK already has one of the highest covid-19 vaccine uptake rates in the world and we are working closely with the NHS to make it as easy as possible for everyone to get a vaccine.
There are more than 2,200 vaccination sites in operation across the country, an additional 500 extra vaccination sites now compared with April this year. Hundreds of walk-in sites across the country are now also offering booster vaccines, making it even easier for people who are eligible to get their top-up jab. From Elland Road in Leeds to the Kassam Stadium in Oxford, the NHS is making it as easy as possible for people to get vital protection against the virus ahead of the winter months.
We are working with the NHS to provide advice and information at every opportunity on how to get a vaccine and its benefits as well as combating any misinformation. The NHS is engaging every single day with local authorities, faith leaders and organisations representing ethnic minority communities to provide advice and information about vaccines and about how they will be made available.
Our communications include information and advice via TV, radio and social media, and this has been translated into more than 13 different languages. Print and online material, including interviews and practical advice, has appeared in 600 national, regional, local and specialist titles. We have worked with clinicians and medical influencers to communicate the benefits of the vaccine and deliver content via the media and social media platforms.
This is just some of the huge amount of activity that has taken place, and that continues to take place, to ensure that as many people as possible can benefit from the vaccine, but we are not resting on our laurels. We have been continually learning throughout the roll-out of the vaccine. We look at research from trusted and reputable sources and we have identified some of the most effective interventions. I am sure that we can learn from this for other vaccination programmes, too. For example, we have learned that engagement with local communities, targeting specific gaps in vaccine uptake and getting local, trusted community leaders involved—people who know their communities well—is a very effective approach.
There are countless, brilliant examples of local activity around the country, but I shall mention Salford where they worked specifically with people experiencing homelessness, and were able to vaccinate 653 people. Every jab helps to save lives, and these are some of the hardest to reach people in our society, and also those who would have been most vulnerable to the virus. We have also increased the amount of information publicly available on vaccines, including more transparency about its benefits, safety, and potential side effects.
I can fully assure my hon. Friend that this Government are committed to tackling covid-19 vaccine misinformation, and I agree with every word that he has said so passionately on this: vaccine misinformation is dangerous and costs lives. That is why we stood up the cross-Whitehall counter-disinformation unit, specifically to tackle online misinformation and disinformation, and to hold social media companies to their public commitments to combat covid misinformation. We have also produced a wide variety of communications and toolkits to share case stories, build confidence, and provide trusted information about the safety of the vaccine.
Throughout the pandemic, the Government have been guided by the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the four UK chief medical officers, and we have consulted a wide range of experts and ensured that their advice is embraced and actioned. Trusted experts such as our deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam and so many others have all helped to build confidence in the vaccine in our communities where uptake is traditionally low. That has made a big difference. YouGov polling indicates that vaccine hesitancy in ethnic minority groups reduced from 63% to 14% from October 2020 to August 2021.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not have an ounce of complacency, and will continue to do whatever we can to stamp out dangerous misinformation. He is keen that we translate the successes of the covid vaccination programme into all our immunisation programmes. I fully agree that there is so much learning from our response to the pandemic that can inform and strengthen our wider vaccination programme.
The UK already has world-leading childhood immunisation programmes, and vaccine coverage from most of our childhood programmes is generally high. My hon. Friend was quite correct when he indicated that uptake had fallen slightly due to school closures and social distancing. I reassure him that the mitigation measures are in place to ensure that no child misses out on those vaccinations. However, we know that uptake rates must improve to fully protect the public from preventable diseases. We made a manifesto commitment to maintain and improve the routine childhood vaccination programme, and we recognise that there is still more that can be done to improve uptake in all programmes.
The publication of England’s national vaccine strategy has been delayed as a result of our ongoing focus on responding to the unprecedented covid-19 pandemic, but rest assured the strategy has been kept under constant  review and is in the process of being refreshed to reflect the changed landscape that the pandemic has brought, including new developments from the covid-19 vaccine and the extended NHS flu programme.
I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the use of data and technology. Both offer immense benefits to every individual who seeks vaccination and to the health system that supports them. Our ambition is to make vaccination records easily available digitally so that each individual, and anyone treating them, can easily access their vaccination records, know which vaccines they have had, which they still need, and when they are due to receive them. The covid-19 pandemic has reinforced both the importance of vaccines—as they offer the best way out of the pandemic and the return to normal life—and our certainty that we can do even better and create even stronger, more effective vaccination programmes in the future.
Flu is another winter virus that can be serious, especially when combined with covid-19. That is why we are running the largest ever flu vaccination programme in UK history. A record 35 million people in England can book a free flu jab this year—the most ambitious effort ever to protect individuals and their loved ones from what can be a very nasty illness. It is vital that we build on the learning from the successes of the covid-19 vaccine programme, and use it to improve all vaccine programmes.
The covid-19 vaccine roll-out continues to be a success through every single vaccine given. I ask those people who peddle untruths and misinformation about the benefits of the vaccine to look at the evidence: more than 130,000 lives saved; and more than 24 million infections and 230,000 hospitalisations prevented. The facts are clear. That is 130,000 families who continue to have a mother, father, husband, wife, daughter, son, brother or sister still with them—and that is powerful. It is for that reason that we will continue to tackle vaccine misinformation head-on, and to promote the benefits of the vaccine to as many people as possible.
Finally, and as I have been grateful to have the opportunity to say many times at this Dispatch Box over the last few weeks, I urge everyone to get their booster jab as soon as they are eligible. To those who have not had their first jab yet: it is never too late.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.